# Will your next car be a EV (Electric Vehicle)?



## NewbieInvestor88

We will see an explosion in the number of offerings out there, are you guys looking at any?


----------



## Ponderling

I have been driving a Volt for 3 years. Love it. Not all electric, but I put something like 70L of fuel into it in a typical year for trips that are beyond its electric range. The cost to drive on electric is about one half o ne third the cost to drive this thing on gas. On gas it gets 5.2l/100km.

So the next car will have a larger electric range and will be all electric.


----------



## ian

It will be depend on the evolution of battery technology. And range.

Perhaps not the next, but most likely the one after that.


----------



## milhouse

Pretty sure our next car is going to be fully electric, partly due to the fact I don't see us getting a new car until another 5 to 10 years which will allow for more innovation and infrastructure investment in the mean time. 
Range is a big consideration for us too because we like going on road trips. I don't see range being a significant issue for daily driving in the city. However, this Wendover video seems to suggest we're not too far off from expected range requirements so instead the issue going forward is fast charging. Charging requires inverters to convert AC to DC. Fast charging requires larger, pretty expensive inverters. And there's not enough supercharging stations which apparently would be helped with plug standardization instead of proprietary versions.


----------



## nathan79

Depends on the price vs. a comparable gas car. I could accept paying an additional $5K for an EV, knowing I'll start to come out ahead on gas savings within a few years. But we're nowhere near that point.


----------



## james4beach

My next car will be a slightly used reliable model. I would consider an EV if I can find one that's lightly used, in good shape for around 5k to 10k.

Can one buy an EV for that much?

I'm going to guess no, so I'll likely buy a gas-powered car since good ones can be found for 10k or less.


----------



## like_to_retire

I think it's still too soon. Maybe in another 10 years.

The prices will definitely have to come down a lot before they become mainstream.

For myself, I only drive 2K a year, so no gas savings.

ltr


----------



## off.by.10

I've been looking for years. Just bought a car but not an EV. Hopefully the next one in 7-10 years will be. But it will depend on availability and pricing. It needs to make reasonable economic sense. I'm willing to pay a premium but not a huge one and since I don't drive a lot, we're not there yet.

The other thing is that we need more choice of larger vehicles. The current crop are great city cars but most are a little tight to take the kids on a week long vacation.


----------



## peterk

No. I am well off, so it would be unethical to buy an EV with such huge Taxpayer subsidies when those thousands and thousands of dollars could go to better causes than my (and other rich people's) EV incentives.

It's also the norm today to vote for "your personal best interest" without consideration of others. I work in the oil industry, so it's in my personal interest to buy a regular gas vehicle, so I will.

EVs should be adopted by many young people organically without issue because climate change is their #1 concern and they will obviously be willing to spend a bit of extra money to save the planet... So there will be no need for the governments to give them someone else's money to buy themselves a car, and there will be no need for governments to coerce and extort extra production of EVs from auto manufacturers... right?

And, as James sensibly concludes above, it will make more financial and lifestyle sense to just buy a regular used gas vehicle, as always. I'll probably get a 3 year old, mid-trim, 3 row SUV with a nice reliable V6, for $25,000, for my growing family.

*Edit: *I would think about a regular Hybrid for sure, if it cost only marginally more, and has no moral hazard of taxpayer subsidy. Regenerative braking with a small battery makes a lot of sense to me. Energy efficiency is a good thing.


----------



## l1quidfinance

I've been looking but the price point is not where I want it to be. 
Then there is the factor of range and also the need to tow once in awhile. 

I think the best option at the minute is probably the Rav 4 Plug Prime. Plug in Hybrid is you are lucky enough to get one. In the next couple of years this could be a game changer. I really believe in fuel cell technology though and think the answer lies with that rather than 100% electric production. 

Also once we all shift to electric the savings will be gone. Gas tax has to come from somewhere. 
There is also the anxiety issues of failing batteries and replacement costs. Perhaps long term we will own the cars but batteries will be on a lease model.


----------



## MrMatt

Next car will be gas, or a hybrid. I still have range anxiety. For camping and things.

Though I am considering all electric and rentals.


----------



## sags

I would if I could......but I can't.

Our townhouse complex has no place to charge an EV.

I suspect most townhouses don't...either rented or owned.

I suspect that will prevent a lot of people from getting an EV.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> I would if I could......but I can't.
> 
> Our townhouse complex has no place to charge an EV.


Yes, and this applies for a lot of people who live in a downtown area where they are actually parking on the street with a pass.

And in another way it would also be a challenge for apartment buildings to offer charging for each unit. Imagine the expensive job to run wiring to every underground parking spot and have the usage charged to each renter.

It will be a long time before gas machines go out of use.

I would never buy a hybrid myself. They're far too complex and would require increased maintenance. You have the entire system of both an EV and an ICE and then the switching between the two. I would just choose one system and be done with it.

ltr


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> I would if I could......but I can't.
> 
> Our townhouse complex has no place to charge an EV.
> 
> I suspect most townhouses don't...either rented or owned.
> 
> I suspect that will prevent a lot of people from getting an EV.


naw, they'll get an EV, then complain that they didn't plan ahead, and it's somehow unfair.

The really big problem is the HUGE amount of electricity that they draw. 
Lets say your normal home has 100 Amp service (though many are going 200 Amp now)
Adding a 40 Amp charger is a 40% increase in power demand.

Assuming a townhouse/apartment is less, we're talking 40% or more power, bigger service, bigger feeds to the buildings, it's a HUGE infrastructure increase.

Realistically I think we should almost get a "bulk" system, so we can charge vehicles, powerwalls (ie household backups) during off peak hours. But Time of Use is still in the early stages.


----------



## Fain

I'm torn Between Tesla Model S or one of the new Lotus Models when they come electric. Will probably get the model S.


----------



## agent99

I bought shares in VW. I am guessing they will be the leader in EVs in 5 years. By then, perhaps my shares will have increased enough to buy a small Volksevwagen  (VWAGY up 38% this month so far!) I would like a small basic EV for use around town. No fancy Teslas for me  I suspect I am not alone.


----------



## MK7GTI

The F250 Tremor I've been looking at or an EV? Hmm.. yeah no EV for me until I absolutely have to.


----------



## agent99

MK7GTI said:


> The F250 Tremor I've been looking at or an EV? Hmm.. yeah no EV for me until I absolutely have to.


Those trucks are one of the reasons we have and need a carbon tax


----------



## james4beach

MK7GTI said:


> The F250 Tremor I've been looking at or an EV? Hmm.. yeah no EV for me until I absolutely have to.


I'm curious, why do you need a truck like this with a 6 or 7 litre V8 engine? Is it because you haul heavy items for a living?

The tradespeople I know tend to get by with more modest trucks.


----------



## AltaRed

For many, a honking big truck is a status symbol rather than a workhorse. There are thousands of quad cab trucks here in the Okanagan which have not seen so much as a 2x4 in the truck bed. They need to be whacked with an annual registration fee in the thousands of dollars to stop the nonsense/impact on the environment. 

My view is to make annual registration fees for non-commercial vehicles rise exponentially with combined fuel consumption, e.g. $100 for 7L/100km, $400 @ 8L/100km, $1600 @ 9L/100km and so forth. But that is for a different thread.

We just bought a Mazda CX-5 GT Turbo last year so we may not buy another vehicle for upwards of 10 years. I have no doubt the replacement will be an EV come 2030 or so. We felt we could not wait another 3-5 years to buy an EV at a reasonable price, reasonable range, and with superchargers properly located throughout our highway system. That's about how long it will most likely take to make the numbers close.


----------



## cainvest

james4beach said:


> Is it because you haul heavy items for a living?





AltaRed said:


> There are thousands of quad cab trucks here in the Okanagan which have not seen so much as a 2x4 in the truck bed.


I have many friends that drive trucks mainly for hauling dirt bikes or trailers with bikes/gear on weekends. One sad thing they've done over the past years is drop the tow rating on most smaller vehicles, some don't even allow towing anymore. Good way to drive up truck sales and fuel use.


----------



## AltaRed

Europeans get by with much smaller vehicles and they still enjoy the great outdoors, The need for a full size F-150, never mind a F-250 or F-350, is vastly overblown. For those that do, they can then also afford to pay the price of stiff annual registration fees. Use the collected fee revenue to fund EV subsidies and super chargers.

We just put a Class 3 hitch on our Mazda CX-5 Turbo, primarily for a bike rack, but can tow a decent sized utility trailer, e.g. 2000lbs or so. That is plenty big enough for most recreational use.


----------



## james4beach

AltaRed said:


> Europeans get by with much smaller vehicles and they still enjoy the great outdoors, The need for a full size F-150, never mind a F-250 or F-350, is vastly overblown. For those that do, they can then also afford to pay the price of stiff annual registration fees. Use the collected fee revenue to fund EV subsidies and super chargers.
> 
> We just put a Class 3 hitch on our Mazda CX-5, primarily for a bike rack, but can tow a decent sized utility trailer, e.g. 2000lbs or so. That is plenty big enough for most recreational use.


When I lived in Oregon, I was impressed by what people were able to do with their Subarus. At first I didn't understand the whole Subaru thing... but now I get it.

People buy these for utility, not for "flash". Many of them have amazing off road capabilities, plus they're very fuel efficient. Come to think of it, I could see myself buying a Subaru some day.


----------



## cliffsecord

Lots of misconceptions about charging!! Yes best if you can get 40 amps, but really you can do with 20 amps. The key is to get it to 240 V. 20 amps at 240 V will get you 20km an hour. This setup does not need new panel nor is it expensive.


----------



## cainvest

AltaRed said:


> Europeans get by with much smaller vehicles and they still enjoy the great outdoors, The need for a full size F-150, never mind a F-250 or F-350, is vastly overblown. For those that do, they can then also afford to pay the price of stiff annual registration fees. Use the collected fee revenue to fund EV subsidies and super chargers.
> 
> We just put a Class 3 hitch on our Mazda CX-5 Turbo, primarily for a bike rack, but can tow a decent sized utility trailer, e.g. 2000lbs or so. That is plenty big enough for most recreational use.


Towing rates tend to be much higher in Europe for the same vehicles here in NA. Also note a 2.7L F150 gets only one mpg less than a CX-5 turbo on the highway, 2 mpg less in the city.

If you read the towing details in the owners manual many vehicles (like the CX-5) can't tow more than 1000lbs unless the trailer has brakes. Oddly enough, many SUVs don't even support electronic brake controllers. Next thing is try to find a trailer under 2000 lbs that has brakes on it. They just make everything so difficult in regards to towing.


----------



## doctrine

Unless you are in the market for a 4 door sedan, there are not a lot of options - and even those cars are quite expensive. I have a mini-van, and it is enormously more practical than our 4 door hatchback, which is in itself more practical than most electric cars out there today. And I bought both of my vehicles for less than an extended range, fully equipped Model 3. I know you save on fuel costs, but I can't get the vehicles I need right now. Maybe in the future. 

But then again, I fully expect electric vehicle fuel and/or registration costs to soar as the "free rider" problem arises, as governments need to extract that money from gasoline taxes that is at risk of disappearing. You already see this occurring in many US states with extremely high EV registration costs. This is probably going to narrow the fuel cost advantage by as much as half. You heard it here first. Governments collect billions in gas tax. It also directly funds infrastructure across Canada.


----------



## Money172375

cainvest said:


> Towing rates tend to be much higher in Europe for the same vehicles here in NA. Also note a 2.7L F150 gets only one mpg less than a CX-5 turbo on the highway, 2 mpg less in the city.
> 
> If you read the towing details in the owners manual many vehicles (like the CX-5) can't tow more than 1000lbs unless the trailer has brakes. Oddly enough, many SUVs don't even support electronic brake controllers. Next thing is try to find a trailer under 2000 lbs that has brakes on it. They just make everything so difficult in regards to towing.


North American lawyers are the cause


----------



## agent99

AltaRed said:


> For many, a honking big truck is a status symbol rather than a workhorse. There are thousands of quad cab trucks here in the Okanagan which have not seen so much as a 2x4 in the truck bed.


Same here. Even at our local (public) golf club - parking lot half filled with pickups. Even the club owners drive pickups!



AltaRed said:


> My view is to make annual registration fees for non-commercial vehicles rise exponentially with combined fuel consumption, e.g. $100 for 7L/100km, $400 @ 8L/100km, $1600 @ 9L/100km and so forth. But that is for a different thread.


I think we still pay extra for A/C air tax fee when we buy a car. One time $100 fee. Not efective. Do any cars come without A/C these days? This should be part of the fuel consumption fee you suggest. This is what A/C does to fuel consumption

I don't see that annual fees should be tied to rated fuel consumption data. I might own a car that may only be rated at 10mpg, but only drive it 1000 miles a year. Another car may be rated at 35mpg but because it is driven 12000 miles per year, uses a lot more fuel and emits more CO2.

The cost of owning and using vehicles with poor fuel efficiency should be tied to overall fuel usage. That means paying at the pump. The carbon tax aims at doing that. An additional dis-incentive when buying the vehicle could be in addition to this, as the A/C fee is. But really that A/C fee no longer makes any sense. Change it to an enviro fee or whatever like the tires have.


----------



## sags

We have nowhere to charge an EV, except in the backyard plug......so I have been looking for EVs that fit through the back gate and don't take up too much space in the courtyard.

I have been looking at something like this.....but government regulations are getting sketchy.

They don't want them on the roads and don't like them on the sidewalks.

I think the open one on the left is a better idea. Driving down the sidewalk in something that looks like a car will definately get the attention of the police.

It is amazing the range of EV vehicles there are around the world, especially in Asia.

The Alibabba website has all kinds of different ones.


----------



## agent99

sags said:


> We have nowhere to charge an EV, except in the backyard plug......so I have been looking for EVs that fit through the back gate and don't take up too much space in the courtyard.
> 
> I have been looking at something like this.....but government regulations are getting sketchy.


Didn't realize you were a person whose mobility is limited by a condition or functional impairment.

I often see disabled people out around here on their scooters. Seems they are allowed, but their may be local restrictions

Several choices here: 4 Wheel Scooters - Four Wheel Mobility Scooter |1800wheelchair

One good thing about these - You don't need *registration, licence plates, a driver's licence or vehicle insurance.* So if they take my license away, I just get a scooter?

Surprised they want users to drive against the flow of traffic!


----------



## cainvest

agent99 said:


> The cost of owning and using vehicles with poor fuel efficiency should be tied to overall fuel usage. That means paying at the pump. The carbon tax aims at doing that. An additional dis-incentive when buying the vehicle could be in addition to this, as the A/C fee is. But really that A/C fee no longer makes any sense. Change it to an enviro fee or whatever like the tires have.


I agree, tax based on use, which means "pay at the pump". A/C really falls under this as well, if you're using your A/C (not just that you have it) you consume more fuel, paying more tax.


----------



## AltaRed

It's a combination of carbon taxes at the pump as well as penalties for buying fuel inefficient vehicles that is most fair. At some level, those with low incomes are unduly penalized by carbon taxes on fuel that the wealthier can pay without batting an eye. Part of the plan should be to get gas guzzlers off the roads and that would mean punitive annual registration fees. 

When I lived in Virginia in the 1990s, annual registration fees were based on the current resale value of the vehicle. That was designed to nail all the fat cats living in VA but working in DC. So most working stiffs migrated to lower cost vehicles while the fat cats and diplomats drove the BMWs, Benz's and the like. Let them pay the taxes. It has a directional impact. 

A number of tools in the war chest that need to be applied to put the squeeze on ICE vehicles. All said, a bit off topic though to the original post on EV purchases.


----------



## agent99

cainvest said:


> I agree, tax based on use, which means "pay at the pump". A/C really falls under this as well, if you're using your A/C (not just that you have it) you consume more fuel, paying more tax.


The A/C has two aspects. One is more fuel used but the other, like tires, is the need to collect and recycle the refrigerant.

The R134a used until recently and still in most of our cars, is not as bad as R12 but is much worse than CO2 (R744) from a global warming standpoint. It will soon no longer be used on any new vehicles. It has been replaced by R1234yf (*2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoropropene)* on some cars starting about 2018, and will become the new standard. Trade names are Opteon YF and Solstice YF.


----------



## cainvest

agent99 said:


> The A/C has two aspects. One is more fuel used but the other, like tires, is the need to collect and recycle the refrigerant.


Yes, the initial AC charge is for recycling, that's fine. BTW, is it charged again if someone get their AC recharged ... probably should be if it isn't. You also tied it to increased fuel comsumption, which is covered by "pay at the pump" and what my response was about.


----------



## cainvest

AltaRed said:


> It's a combination of carbon taxes at the pump as well as penalties for buying fuel inefficient vehicles that is most fair. At some level, those with low incomes are unduly penalized by carbon taxes on fuel that the wealthier can pay without batting an eye. Part of the plan should be to get gas guzzlers off the roads and that would mean punitive annual registration fees.


Is it about getting gas guzzles off the road or taxing the rich? Annual registration seems like alot of paper work and rules to administer fairly. Why not increase the hit on purchase price for gas guzzlers (doesn't effect lower incomes) and include more vehicles that are bad on fuel? That with increasing fuel taxes (pay more for those that use) that partly translate to rebates for EV purchase and ICE gets two negative pushes out the door.


----------



## andrewf

peterk said:


> No. I am well off, so it would be unethical to buy an EV with such huge Taxpayer subsidies when those thousands and thousands of dollars could go to better causes than my (and other rich people's) EV incentives.
> 
> It's also the norm today to vote for "your personal best interest" without consideration of others. I work in the oil industry, so it's in my personal interest to buy a regular gas vehicle, so I will.
> 
> EVs should be adopted by many young people organically without issue because climate change is their #1 concern and they will obviously be willing to spend a bit of extra money to save the planet... So there will be no need for the governments to give them someone else's money to buy themselves a car, and there will be no need for governments to coerce and extort extra production of EVs from auto manufacturers... right?
> 
> And, as James sensibly concludes above, it will make more financial and lifestyle sense to just buy a regular used gas vehicle, as always. I'll probably get a 3 year old, mid-trim, 3 row SUV with a nice reliable V6, for $25,000, for my growing family.
> 
> *Edit: *I would think about a regular Hybrid for sure, if it cost only marginally more, and has no moral hazard of taxpayer subsidy. Regenerative braking with a small battery makes a lot of sense to me. Energy efficiency is a good thing.


If you only care about your personal best interest, shouldn't you snag the subsidy and stiff the oil industry (freeload off the people are loyal to burning thing).


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> It's a combination of carbon taxes at the pump as well as penalties for buying fuel inefficient vehicles that is most fair. At some level, those with low incomes are unduly penalized by carbon taxes on fuel that the wealthier can pay without batting an eye. Part of the plan should be to get gas guzzlers off the roads and that would mean punitive annual registration fees.


Those with low incomes get hundreds of dollars in rebates every year. Absolutely no disadvantage. The truly low income, who don't own cars and live in modest homes, benefit the most.


----------



## andrewf

For me, I am coming up on a new vehicle purchase. I don't think the EV market is quite where I need it to be from a cost/utility standpoint, but I expect it will be in 4-5 years. I am planning to buy a 4-5 year used vehicle. With COVID and reduced need to drive, I am postponing the purchase.


----------



## bgc_fan

cainvest said:


> Is it about getting gas guzzles off the road or taxing the rich? Annual registration seems like alot of paper work and rules to administer fairly. Why not increase the hit on purchase price for gas guzzlers (doesn't effect lower incomes) and include more vehicles that are bad on fuel? That with increasing fuel taxes (pay more for those that use) that partly translate to rebates for EV purchase and ICE gets two negative pushes out the door.


There's a reason why EV adoption is so high in Norway. They have a VAT on ICE cars of 25%. It's always been there and not something new. But to encourage EV uptake, they drop that VAT for EV cars. EV cars also get other benefits like free parking and the are allowed to drive in bus only lanes. Why Norway leads the world in electric vehicle adoption

As for taxing the rich... you should see places like Singapore where to buy a car, you need to buy a certificate of entitlement which scales up as the car price goes up. Why a car is an extravagance in Singapore - CNN


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> Those with low incomes get hundreds of dollars in rebates every year. Absolutely no disadvantage. The truly low income, who don't own cars and live in modest homes, benefit the most.


The lower income, at least around these parts, working circa minimum wage are more likely to buy older used vehicles with higher fuel consumption AND less well maintained than anything else. There has been talk every 5 years or so about imposing annual, or bi-annual safety AND sometimes emission inspections, but political pressure about disproportionately affecting lower income folks keeps putting that off.


----------



## agent99

cainvest said:


> Is it about getting gas guzzles off the road or taxing the rich? Annual registration seems like alot of paper work and rules to administer fairly.


One problem with some of the ideas here, is that quite a number of pick up owners are also tradesmen that use their trucks for both work and personal use. They may buy a $50k truck, but are not among the rich. EVs are not practical for them - yet.

When I was young and lived in the UK many years ago, they had a different rate for vehicles that could be used for commercial use (Vans, Lorries, etc). They didn't need to be used for such purpose. Many of us bought used vans because they were cheap and could be use for camping and touring Europe. They were limited to a top speed of 40mph in the UK, but not once you got on the autobahn  I assume that has all changed.

So perhaps tradesmen could be given a break? Just increase cost for trucks and other gas guzzlers that are primarily used as personal transportation. But how do you monitor that? Maybe they would have to show a business licence or HST number or something?? In Ontario, I believe commercial and personal pay same.


----------



## AltaRed

My posts referred to personal use vehicles, not commercial plated vehicles. I agree there are numerous commercial reasons for needing hauling capacity and for them to get a break on increased fees. Regardless, Ford et al are going to be making electric F-150s so there will be no excuse either way.


----------



## Eder

I towed stuff most of my working life...I wouldn't tow a baby carriage with a Mazda or a Subaru. I used mostly 1 ton Dodge diesels, 4 wheel drive with dual rear wheels to tow...even that can get shady.

Anyway I am looking forward to an electric powered Prevost as my next motorhome...my current rig gets about 7 mpg. Hope I live that long.


----------



## MK7GTI

agent99 said:


> Those trucks are one of the reasons we have and need a carbon tax


Perhaps. I bought a 2016 F150 a couple months ago and an enclosed trailer do to some hot shoting to and from the Alberta/NWT border. It’s turned out to be a rather successful little business venture. I’ve got requests for larger loads that the F150/current trailer couldn’t handle. I’m still on the fence with an upgrade to the F250 especially considering I would want the Diesel engine which is an $8,000 upgrade over gas. On top of that I would look to purchase a 25 foot gooseneck trailer as well. Fortunately for me being close to Alberta means gooseneck trailers are in abundance.


----------



## Eder

If its oilfield stuff go for the 40' trailer from the start. If water/sewer etc 25 is cool. Diesel is worth it, you'll get it back on resale anyway but will tug a lot more effortlessly.


----------



## agent99

Eder said:


> I towed stuff most of my working life...I wouldn't tow a baby carriage with a Mazda or a Subaru.


What prompted that? Did anyone suggest using a Mazda or Subaru as a tow vehicle?


----------



## AltaRed

agent99 said:


> What prompted that? Did anyone suggest using a Mazda or Subaru as a tow vehicle?


It was purposely taken out of context to justify a position. I said that I had just installed a Class 3 hitch on our Mazda CX-5 Turbo primarily for a bike rack but both the hitch and the vehicle was rated to tow 2000 lbs, e.g. utility trailer. Further on, Cavinvest tried to compare the gas mileage of a CX-5 turbo to a F-150 with a 2.7L engine. No one buys a F-150 with a 2.7L engine as a tow vehicle and most likely not as a stand alone vehicle either. The power/weight ratio is not in the same league.

I have no objection to commercially licensed applications for business purposes like MK7GTI is doing. Goods need to be moved.


----------



## andrewf

MK7GTI said:


> Perhaps. I bought a 2016 F150 a couple months ago and an enclosed trailer do to some hot shoting to and from the Alberta/NWT border. It’s turned out to be a rather successful little business venture. I’ve got requests for larger loads that the F150/current trailer couldn’t handle. I’m still on the fence with an upgrade to the F250 especially considering I would want the Diesel engine which is an $8,000 upgrade over gas. On top of that I would look to purchase a 25 foot gooseneck trailer as well. Fortunately for me being close to Alberta means gooseneck trailers are in abundance.


Seems like this application is best suited to a hybrid drive train for torque/efficiency as well as range.


----------



## agent99

I happen to own an Outback - maybe Eder knew that too! I have a hitch, just for our bike rack ! Not a tow vehicle😁
I have done a lot of long distance towing, but won't get into that here!


----------



## MK7GTI

Eder said:


> If its oilfield stuff go for the 40' trailer from the start. If water/sewer etc 25 is cool. Diesel is worth it, you'll get it back on resale anyway but will tug a lot more effortlessly.


Appreciate the info. Couple buddies have said go with the 40 foot from the start. Obviously the upfront cost is higher but it pays for itself and holds its value.

For the record, I’m not against hybrids or electrics. They have their place. Technology has come along way but I think they still have another 10 years to go. Also, the entry cost for either option is still too high. Then again, new cars cost far too much these days.


----------



## Eder

The 40' trailer will get a lot of hot shot jobs that others can't take, aluminum trailers don't cost much. Just sucks towing thru town though lol.

btw I thought I read someone talked about 2000 lb towing capacity on a small car...I've actually seen young couples towing small rv trailers with their cars, and larger fifth wheels with 1/2 ton Fords...they're probably too broke to do better but it's dangerous to everyone on the road. Bike racks of course make sense.


----------



## james4beach

agent99 said:


> I happen to own an Outback - maybe Eder knew that too! I have a hitch, just for our bike rack ! Not a tow vehicle😁


What is your impression, after owning a Subaru? What do you think of the quality?

I might look at buying a second hand, lightly used Subaru, along the lines of what @peterk wrote in this thread.


----------



## cainvest

agent99 said:


> One problem with some of the ideas here, is that quite a number of pick up owners are also tradesmen that use their trucks for both work and personal use. They may buy a $50k truck, but are not among the rich. EVs are not practical for them - yet.


Honestly I don't know if that would be a financial problem for trades people buying a $50K vehicle, depends on how much of a guzzler tax they'd apply wouldn't it? There are lots of used trucks around, even mid-sized ones. They can also phase this in like the carbon tax.


----------



## cainvest

AltaRed said:


> No one buys a F-150 with a 2.7L engine as a tow vehicle and most likely not as a stand alone vehicle either. The power/weight ratio is not in the same league.


I don't think everyone that buys an F150 needs the 5.0L that'll tow 13,000 lbs.


----------



## cainvest

Eder said:


> btw I thought I read someone talked about 2000 lb towing capacity on a small car...I've actually seen young couples towing small rv trailers with their cars, and larger fifth wheels with 1/2 ton Fords...they're probably too broke to do better but it's dangerous to everyone on the road. Bike racks of course make sense.


I don't know of any "small" cars that are rated for 2000 lbs. I know some that are 1000 and a subaru outback is currently rated to 2700 lbs (with trailer brakes).


----------



## Eclectic12

I wouldn't call my old Ford Fusion a "small" car and it was rated for zilch, to my surprise.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

AltaRed said:


> ... Further on, Cavinvest tried to compare the gas mileage of a CX-5 turbo to a F-150 with a 2.7L engine. No one buys a F-150 with a 2.7L engine as a tow vehicle and most likely not as a stand alone vehicle either. The power/weight ratio is not in the same league ...


Maybe in your area people are like my brother-in-law, buying a tow vehicle that they know is over sized so they don't have to change vehicles if they go larger on what is towed?

IAC ... thanks for pointing the F-150 with a 2.7L engine out as it looks like it fits the upgrade I need nicely, with a reasonable safety margin to spare.
'Course I am in no rush as I won't be doing any long haul towing until retirement.


Cheers


----------



## twa2w

Ford F150 2.7L has a pretty high tow capacity for a small engine. Close to 10,000 lbs. Not much different than the 13,000 pounds of a 5L at 13,000 lbs. I see a few of the 2.7 F150s in the campgrounds with trailers in tow.

Even a little car like a Subaru Cross trek is rated for 1500 lbs. A Rav 4 can tow between 1500 and 3500 depending on the model.

I wonder how much margin is engineered into those limits to account for the idiots out there.


----------



## andrewf

cainvest said:


> I don't know of any "small" cars that are rated for 2000 lbs. I know some that are 1000 and a subaru outback is currently rated to 2700 lbs (with trailer brakes).


Model 3 is rated to tow 2000 lbs (in Europe).


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> Model 3 is rated to tow 2000 lbs (in Europe).


Try to find one in North America now (less than 5 years old).
Also, one that doesn't "require" trailer brakes over 1000 lbs.


----------



## andrewf

cainvest said:


> Try to find one in North America now (less than 5 years old).
> Also, one that doesn't "require" trailer brakes over 1000 lbs.


Not following? EVs are actually pretty good for braking. Reg can apply a lot of braking force without fading. Jut don't charge to 100% at the top of a hill!

Here was one test. IIRC they didn't even need to use the friction brakes.





Of course, towing regulations in North America are quite conservative compared to Europe.


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> Not following? EVs are actually pretty good for braking. Reg can apply a lot of braking force without fading. Jut don't charge to 100% at the top of a hill!
> 
> Here was one test. IIRC they didn't even need to use the friction brakes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, towing regulations in North America are quite conservative compared to Europe.


So you went from "small car" to over $100K worth SUV .... yup, not following.


----------



## agent99

Those Teslas need more towing power. In order to get almost anywhere, they need to tag one of these along 













__





200 kW Diesel Generator







www.toromontpowersystems.com


----------



## peterk

andrewf said:


> If you only care about your personal best interest, shouldn't you snag the subsidy and stiff the oil industry (freeload off the people are loyal to burning thing).


Ha. Well I was just listing any number of reasons I _could _use to justify not buying an EV next. They don't need to all be coherent together.

Not that I actually vote in "my personal best interest" anyways. I was just making a point about the selfish, shallow justifications society uses when they won't admit that their decisions are just for their own best interest or to make themselves feel good.


----------



## andrewf

cainvest said:


> So you went from "small car" to over $100K worth SUV .... yup, not following.


No, just pointing out that EVs don't suffer the same problems as ICE vehicles when it comes to brakes, transmission, etc. though they do suffer significant range hits.

Model 3 is not rated for towing in NA (though it is in Europe), so I could not show you a video. Model Y can tow 3500lbs.

Really, if you are towing heavier loads, this is what you would be looking for. Volume production <9 months. $70k for 500 mi range (and <3s 0-60).


----------



## Eder

Lol at towing with a Tesla...like a Toyota. Andrew, you should be selling these cars! Super fanboi!


----------



## agent99

VOLTSWAGEN????

US operations of VW to be renamed! I wish I had bought more shares when I did a month or so ago.









Volkswagen says ‘Voltswagen’ rebranding stunt was ‘in the spirit of April Fool’s Day’


Volkswagen came under criticism on social media for its news release, with some commentators recalling the company’s diesel emissions scandal and years of misleading customers and regulators




www.theglobeandmail.com





Starting to look like the first affordable and usable EVs for average guys/gals might be VWs. But likely not for 4 or 5 years at least.


----------



## Spudd

I find it hard to get past how hideous that Cybertruck is. I'm a big EV proponent but that has to be the ugliest vehicle ever.


----------



## sags

agent99 said:


> VOLTSWAGEN????
> 
> US operations of VW to be renamed! I wish I had bought more shares when I did a month or so ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Volkswagen says ‘Voltswagen’ rebranding stunt was ‘in the spirit of April Fool’s Day’
> 
> 
> Volkswagen came under criticism on social media for its news release, with some commentators recalling the company’s diesel emissions scandal and years of misleading customers and regulators
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theglobeandmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Starting to look like the first affordable and usable EVs for average guys/gals might be VWs. But likely not for 4 or 5 years at least.


I wish I had registered the domain name back in 2003.

Voltswagen.com........was first registered in 2003. It was renewed April 2020 for 1 year. Registration is due April 2022. I wonder if VW owns it or will be buying it from someone.

Domain Name: VOLTSWAGEN.COM
Registry Domain ID: 96972744_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.moniker.com
Registrar URL: Moniker | Domain Management - Domain Name Services
Updated Date: 2020-04-19T07:40:11Z
*Creation Date: 2003-04-18T18:06:03Z*
* Registry Expiry Date: 2021-04-18T18:06:03Z*
Registrar: Moniker Online Services LLC
Registrar IANA ID: 228
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: [email protected]
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +49.68949396850
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited
Name Server: NS1.PARKINGSPA.COM
Name Server: NS2.PARKINGSPA.COM


----------



## andrewf

Eder said:


> Lol at towing with a Tesla...like a Toyota. Andrew, you should be selling these cars! Super fanboi!


It is clearly possible. And depending on fuel prices might save a lot of money.


----------



## andrewf

Spudd said:


> I find it hard to get past how hideous that Cybertruck is. I'm a big EV proponent but that has to be the ugliest vehicle ever.


Agreed! It is not attractive conventionally speaking.


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> It is clearly possible. And depending on fuel prices might save a lot of money.


And this on the Model X
Why Electric Cars Aren't Yet Great for Towing


----------



## andrewf

cainvest said:


> And this on the Model X
> Why Electric Cars Aren't Yet Great for Towing


I said possible, not great! Range is an issue. Cybertruck will have a big fat battery, designed for towing (though still with a range hit). It will have 500 mi range without towing, so probably still 200mi+ if towing. Of course ICE vehicles are chugging gas when towing. Time will tell.


----------



## AltaRed

Those folk who live remote from a dealership who can service the vehicle soon learn how complicated and disadvantageous that can be, and the reason why the mix of vehicles often align fairly well with service centres in their area. I think the legacy manufacturers with their dealership network will have an inherent advantage. There is not a remote chance in hell that I'd ever have a Tesla here, almost 400km from a Tesla service centre.


----------



## agent99

Electric pick-ups seem like a good idea. The chassis is already designed to carry large load, so adding long range batteries shouldn't be a problem while still leaving space to carry some stuff. Towing shouldn't be a problem! Some of models on horizon have range of ~700km. Not really needed by those who use them mainly around town. 

Ford look like the leader is this part of the market. Maybe I should buy some Ford shares to go along with the VWs to round out an EV bet ?? 









Every Electric Pickup Truck Currently on the Horizon


Ford's F-150 Lightning and Chevy's Silverado EV aren't the only battery-powered pickups that are coming soon.




www.caranddriver.com


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> I said possible, not great! Range is an issue. Cybertruck will have a big fat battery, designed for towing (though still with a range hit). It will have 500 mi range without towing, so probably still 200mi+ if towing. Of course ICE vehicles are chugging gas when towing. Time will tell.


Likely way to expensive for a 500 mile range model but it's a start. Well see what they are like once they actually hit the streets.


----------



## cainvest

AltaRed said:


> There is not a remote chance in hell that I'd ever have a Tesla here, almost 400km from a Tesla service centre.


Don't they send service people out to you for minor fixes?


----------



## agent99

sags said:


> I wish I had registered the domain name
> Voltswagen.com........was first registered in 2003. It was renewed April 2020 for 1 year. Registration is due April 2022. I wonder if VW owns it or will be buying it from someone.
> 
> Domain Name: VOLTSWAGEN.COM


On news tonight. This was apparently supposed be an April fuels joke
But someone leaked it (leaks on an EV?)


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> Those folk who live remote from a dealership who can service the vehicle soon learn how complicated and disadvantageous that can be, and the reason why the mix of vehicles often align fairly well with service centres in their area. I think the legacy manufacturers with their dealership network will have an inherent advantage. There is not a remote chance in hell that I'd ever have a Tesla here, almost 400km from a Tesla service centre.


This is kind of presuming Tesla won't ever have a service location that's closer. Considering Tesla only made 1m vehicles up to March 2020, and will likely make close to a million vehicles this year kind of shows that their current service footprint is just getting started. You don't have to justify why you won't currently buy one, but your particular circumstances are not representative of the bulk of the car-buying market.


----------



## cliffsecord

andrewf said:


> This is kind of presuming Tesla won't ever have a service location that's closer. Considering Tesla only made 1m vehicles up to March 2020, and will likely make close to a million vehicles this year kind of shows that their current service footprint is just getting started. You don't have to justify why you won't currently buy one, but your particular circumstances are not representative of the bulk of the car-buying market.


I think Tesla is slowly rolling out service centres. They will start with major cities with a good amount of owners. For example Ottawa now has two service centres. For the cities without service centres they have the mobile ranger. Most jobs they will come to you (even at your work!!) so you don’t have to waste time going to a garage. I’ve had two minor appointments and they came to my house. They did the repairs under warranty even though one definitely wasn’t.

My friend lives next to a ranger and the ranger drove his car to the service centre for him to get the service and then brought it back.

The ranger was one of the many reasons I chose a Tesla over other EVs. I despised going to the mechanic. 

Side note. I’m no fan boy or a car enthusiast but buying the Tesla has changed me to an EV punter and even a slight car enthusiast. I’ve washed my cars (even my minivan) more in one year of ownership than I’ve ever done in 20 years of car ownership. I even did a full PPF of my car. I think I also may have hit midlife crisis. Tesla ownership is a cult...kind of like the Apple cult I guess. You won’t understand until you get one.


----------



## Eder

I've had my Jeep Wrangler 11 years it has never been to a mechanic. Better build quality?


----------



## andrewf

Eder said:


> I've had my Jeep Wrangler 11 years it has never been to a mechanic. Better build quality?


That's really remarkable, particularly for a Chrysler product (not known for quality/reliability). I take this to mean you do all the work yourself.


----------



## agent99

Eder said:


> I've had my Jeep Wrangler 11 years it has never been to a mechanic. Better build quality?


There could be two reasons:

1. You never drive the Jeep
2. You don't consider yourself a mechanic 

I don't think many think that Jeep/Chrysler products have better build quality than other domestic makes. Back in the day, Jeep might have had.


----------



## spiritwalker2222

I wonder if EV production will peak very shortly. I have a hard time believing we could ever replace the ICE car with and EV cars with the current battery technology. It seems to me a pure EV car with a range of only 100 km's or less would be better for the environment than one with a large battery that has 500 km range.


----------



## Spudd

Eder said:


> I've had my Jeep Wrangler 11 years it has never been to a mechanic. Better build quality?


Not even for routine maintenance?


----------



## Eder

andrewf said:


> That's really remarkable, particularly for a Chrysler product (not known for quality/reliability). I take this to mean you do all the work yourself.


I change oil/coolant/differential/transfer case, rotate tires 4 sets of tires, 4 windshields, 2 sets of brakes, . Still has original spark plugs, belts etc though lol. 145km's so far much of it in the dirt plus I've towed it another 110,000 miles (motor home is from the US). It's just a good solid built toy...not for most people.


----------



## Eclectic12

Interesting ... it was a mix of myself and mechanics for oil, replacing brake pads, tune ups for the Ford Escort I drove for sixteen years. I don't know the final kms as I gave it to my brother who drove it another two years before being hit by a DUI drive that totaled it. It was at 296K km when he took over (no towing involved).

Oil was changed at the 10K km mark regularly. It was a manual shift so nothing was done for the gear shift. What was beyond regular maintenance was one battery and one alternator. IIRC, the battery failing was the one trip to the garage/mechanic outside of regular maintenance.

I was expecting to need to replace the gas tank like a previous Escort but I guess the rust proofing was better for this one.


For the range it was driven, East to West was Cranbrook, BC to Montreal, QC. North to South, was Edmonton, AB to Tampa, FL. The most memorable trip to Tampa was driving through hurricane Andrew to have the morning sunrise reveal the damage.


Cheers


----------



## bgc_fan

So, as expected, one provincial government has decided to charge EV user fees of $150/yr: Environmental economist says Sask.’s new electric vehicle fee is 'mind-boggling'

Given that the fuel tax rate is $0.15/L, that'll be the equivalent of 1000 L a year. I wonder if they just picked $150 for the nice round number.


----------



## andrewf

I think the end game is that all vehicles (EV and non-EV) get a registration tax, perhaps proportional to kms driven by odometer reading. I think trying to penalize EVs is just political haymaking. Wait until a meaningful proportion of the fleet is electric to see how that goes over with the electorate.


----------



## MrMatt

bgc_fan said:


> So, as expected, one provincial government has decided to charge EV user fees of $150/yr: Environmental economist says Sask.’s new electric vehicle fee is 'mind-boggling'
> 
> Given that the fuel tax rate is $0.15/L, that'll be the equivalent of 1000 L a year. I wonder if they just picked $150 for the nice round number.


The idea that people have to pay their fair share is "mindboggling".

The whole purpose of the climate change wealth redistribution plan is to take oil and gas money and give it them.
The idea that you should have to pay for the roads you're driving on is shocking to them, they really think they're entitled to have someone else foot the bill. Heck in the article they want more incentives to pay for their new car.


----------



## bgc_fan

andrewf said:


> I think the end game is that all vehicles (EV and non-EV) get a registration tax, perhaps proportional to kms driven by odometer reading.


Doubt it. A flat registration tax is easier to administer, otherwise you would have to set up a system where the government has a process to confirm how much kms were driven.

Yes, the driver would self-report, but you'll still have the situation where people under-report their usage and the government may want to check.


----------



## andrewf

bgc_fan said:


> Doubt it. A flat registration tax is easier to administer, otherwise you would have to set up a system where the government has a process to confirm how much kms were driven.
> 
> Yes, the driver would self-report, but you'll still have the situation where people under-report their usage and the government may want to check.


Random audit + fine for incorrect reporting?


----------



## cainvest

bgc_fan said:


> So, as expected, one provincial government has decided to charge EV user fees of $150/yr: Environmental economist says Sask.’s new electric vehicle fee is 'mind-boggling'
> 
> Given that the fuel tax rate is $0.15/L, that'll be the equivalent of 1000 L a year. I wonder if they just picked $150 for the nice round number.


That's one step in the right direction. 

Another needed step is an enviro-fee/tax used for recycling EV batteries and that the batteries go to an approved recycling place. By approved I mean one that captures a very high percentage of the materials in an environmentally friendly fashion. This should be manditory and regulated nation wide.


----------



## bgc_fan

andrewf said:


> Random audit + fine for incorrect reporting?


Honestly, seems like extra overhead for minimal gain, as I imagine most people are going to be honest. I'm just thinking to the service center where I get plates renewed and I imagine it could get busy (not much staff). Plus most people do it on-line so they are staffed accordingly. 



cainvest said:


> Another needed step is an enviro-fee/tax used for recycling EV batteries and that the batteries go to an approved recycling place. By approved I mean one that captures a very high percentage of the materials in an environmentally friendly fashion. This should be manditory and regulated nation wide.


Sure, I mean we do that with motor oil right?


----------



## AltaRed

bgc_fan said:


> Sure, I mean we do that with motor oil right?


We do. All auto service centres have to collect used oil and sent it to recycling facilities for re-processing. The Bowden 'refinery' in Alberta was set up at one time to do exactly that and to environmentally dispose of the separated contaminants. It think it closed though some years back and I'd have to research where used oil now goes for re-processing.


----------



## cainvest

bgc_fan said:


> Sure, I mean we do that with motor oil right?


Exactly, I have 2 oil recycle depots 5 mins from my house for DIYers.

I think they need to get proper EV battery recycling in place before the flood of old batteries starts to happen.


----------



## bgc_fan

AltaRed said:


> We do. All auto service centres have to collect used oil and sent it to recycling facilities for re-processing.





cainvest said:


> I think they need to get proper EV battery recycling in place before the flood of old batteries starts to happen.


Wouldn't be too much different other than logistics. Auto wreckers would set up a contract with recycling companies to dispose of the batteries. There are at least 4 companies in Canada, only 2 I think are currently operational, can't tell what stage the other 2 are:








Lithium-Ion Battery Recycling Solution - Lithium-Ion Battery Recycling


The Lithion Recycling solution recovers 95% of lithium-ion battery components and regenerates high-purity materials that can be used to manufacture new rechargeable batteries.




www.lithionrecycling.com









Retriev Technologies | Battery Recycling and Management


For over 25 years, we, Retriev Technologies, have built our reputation as global leaders in battery recycling and management. Today, as one of the most knowledgeable and diverse battery recycling companies in the world, we’re moving forward to meet the growing demand for custom recycling solutions.




www.retrievtech.com








__





Recyclico™ – Making Lithium-ion Last Forever™







recyclico.com








__





Homepage


Li-Cycle's lithium-ion battery recycling - resources recovery process for critical materials. The battery recycling technology recovers ≥95% of all critical materials found in lithium-ion batteries.




li-cycle.com





When it comes down to timelines, you're looking at 5-10 years before you start seeing a rise in old batteries. More than likely 15-20 years out if we consider 15 year car life and the EV car boom is starting now.


----------



## cainvest

bgc_fan said:


> When it comes down to timelines, you're looking at 5-10 years before you start seeing a rise in old batteries. More than likely 15-20 years out if we consider 15 year car life and the EV car boom is starting now.


Good recycling places do exist, I'm saying they need to put out regulations so that those places will be used.


----------



## bgc_fan

cainvest said:


> Good recycling places do exist, I'm saying they need to put out regulations so that those places will be used.


I doubt they need regulations to specifically single out these companies any more than there are regulations to dictate what oil recycling firms to use. The only thing I can think of is that there is some government certification process.

Presumably, these companies will pay for the battery salvage, which is probably a better deal than what an auto wrecker would get if they just dump the batteries.


----------



## cainvest

bgc_fan said:


> I doubt they need regulations to specifically single out these companies any more than there are regulations to dictate what oil recycling firms to use. The only thing I can think of is that there is some government certification process.


Since the push to EV is meant to be "green" I think the recycling should be certified "green" as well.


----------



## agent99

bgc_fan said:


> Honestly, seems like extra overhead for minimal gain, as I imagine most people are going to be honest. I'm just thinking to the service center where I get plates renewed and I imagine it could get busy (not much staff). Plus most people do it on-line so they are staffed accordingly.
> 
> *Sure, I mean we do that with motor oil right?*


*Yes we do.* Don't you????? If not, I can't imagine what you do with it.

If you get car serviced by dealer or garage it gets done anyway and the facilities that re-refine used oil do have to meet environmental laws.

I change the oil on my 3 older cars myself. Total of about 24 Litres a year. Canadian Tire take it even if we didn't buy it there. It gets added to their used oil and goes to a recycler.


----------



## bgc_fan

agent99 said:


> *Yes we do.* Don't you????? If not, I can't imagine what you do with it.


I'm not sure why you thought I was being sarcastic.


----------



## agent99

cainvest said:


> I think they need to get proper EV battery recycling in place before the flood of old batteries starts to happen.


This is happening. Full Page Reload

One of the companies mentioned in the above link has a pilot plant near us in Kingston (rode bike by there last week!) Head office is in Mississauga. It is presently called Li-Cycle. They are building a large plant in Rochester on the old Kodak property.

The company was to go public in February in NY. - Haven't read anything about it recently though. But it seems they will merge with an acquisition company.

Interestingly, they can recycle all types of batteries regardless of chemistry.

I don't see anyone throwing these batteries away! They retain many valuable elements even when no longer useful. Even without legislation, they will get recycled!


----------



## Fisher

I bought RAV4 in2019, should be good for another 10years. By the time I should have a lot choices for a _normal_ EV. Tesla has way too much gimmicks. And the idea of Tesla can control your car via air is scary. Hope the other car maker will not to follow Tesla's suite building _intelligent_ cars. I just need plain four wheels .


----------



## MrMatt

Fisher said:


> I bought RAV4 in2019, should be good for another 10years. By the time I should have a lot choices for a _normal_ EV. Tesla has way too much gimmicks. And the idea of Tesla can control your car via air is scary. Hope the other car maker will not to follow Tesla's suite building _intelligent_ cars. I just need plain four wheels .


I think the fact that they remotely change driving parameters is the really scary part.

You hope in and the steering ratio is different, or the acceleration curves. That's crazy.


----------



## martik777

Ponderling said:


> I have been driving a Volt for 3 years. Love it. Not all electric, but I put something like 70L of fuel into it in a typical year for trips that are beyond its electric range. The cost to drive on electric is about one half o ne third the cost to drive this thing on gas. On gas it gets 5.2l/100km.
> 
> So the next car will have a larger electric range and will be all electric.


Another Gen2 Volt owner here, We were paying ~ $100 to fill our accord with a range of 500kms, the volt costs ~ $8 in electricity to go the same distance, so about 12:1 savings
Last time I put gas in it was in the spring of 2020. Only downside is if it needs repairs, I won't be able to fix it and the cost will wipe out a good portion of any savings.


----------



## NewbieInvestor88

So what about those new Ford F150 Lightnings?


----------



## agent99

Fisher said:


> . I just need plain four wheels .


Me too, but problem is that the younger gen want bells & whistles. I bought a new Mercedes in 2014. Specified no sun roof, no nav, no bells or whistles. Traded after 5 years. My pristine car sat on dealers lot for over a year while others with higher mileage sold. Dealer told me that current buyers want all that stuff.
Hoping VW will come out with a people's EV! (I own their shares  )


----------



## AltaRed

I like all the technology, especially safety and comfort, and always buy the hghest, or second highest, trim level. I tend to keep vehicles 10-15 years and I need all that I can get on a new vehicle so that it does not become Cretaceous dated too soon.


----------



## agent99

I won't keep a modern car beyond the manufacturer's warranty. And I want that warranty to cover Canada and USA.


----------



## bgc_fan

More than likely I'll buy an EV, but that's still possibly 8 years down the road as my car is still fine. These days there's a lot more choice as traditional car manufacturers are entering the market. Even Toyota, in partnership with Subaru, is releasing a new EV next year: Toyota’s new all-electric bZ4X will land in Canadian dealerships mid-2022

To be honest, based on my car usage patterns lately, I could even work with a 200 km range car, and charge it once a week.


----------



## MrBlackhill

I'm not a car guy.

I had a Mazda 3 2007 (sedan) and when I met my girlfriend she had a Hyundai Accent 2014 (hatchback). Even though her car was smaller, now that I've experienced hatchback cars I would never go back to sedan. Our next car will be hatchback or small SUV. If I were to change today, I think I'd buy a Hyundai Kona electric.

But since we don't use our car they much, we keep the car for something like 15 years so we're not ready to change yet.

But, yes, our next car will be electric, no doubt about that. It must be able to hold a 250 km range in winter conditions and as a used vehicle.


----------



## prisoner24601

Love the idea of an EV that is fully charged every morning with all the new tech. I'm due to replace my 18 year old Honda one day but the darn thing runs so well it's not a priority. Put me in the unwilling to pay the high premium over the equivalent gas models category - I was looking at the Audi e-tron vs it's internal combustion Q7 brother and the premium for the EV was about 25% if you can even find one.


----------



## AltaRed

MrBlackhill said:


> I had a Mazda 3 2007 (sedan) and when I met my girlfriend she had a Hyundai Accent 2014 (hatchback). Even though her car was smaller, now that I've experienced hatchback cars I would never go back to sedan. Our next car will be hatchback or small SUV. If I were to change today, I think I'd buy a Hyundai Kona electric.


Hatchbacks have gone the way of the dinosaur in North America versus Asia and Europe. I've never understood why someone would want a sedan over a hatchback in the subcompact and compact categories either since sedans have no carrying capacity. But no matter, those who had hatchbacks are now buying the CUV/SUV versions* instead.

* Example: Why buy a Mazda 3 today when one can buy the CX-3 or CX-30 instead?


----------



## cainvest

AltaRed said:


> Hatchbacks have gone the way of the dinosaur in North America versus Asia and Europe.


This is kind of sad, I've driven hatchbacks most of my life and really like them. I would look at a VW ID3 if they bring it to Canada.


----------



## AltaRed

cainvest said:


> This is kind of sad, I've driven hatchbacks most of my life and really like them. I would look at a VW ID3 if they bring it to Canada.


There are no doubt a few makes and models left in the hatchback category but they are not obvious to me.

Added: Looks like there are 18 models left in the USA at least https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/rankings/hatchbacks Not as scarce as I thought if in fact all of those are indeed available as true hatchbacks.


----------



## MrMatt

cainvest said:


> This is kind of sad, I've driven hatchbacks most of my life and really like them. I would look at a VW ID3 if they bring it to Canada.


Love my Golf, way better than my old Malibu.

If the Golf wagon was rated for a small trailer, I'd have already bought one.
I look at the SUVs, you don't get much more room vs a hatchback.


----------



## cainvest

MrMatt said:


> Love my Golf, way better than my old Malibu.
> 
> If the Golf wagon was rated for a small trailer, I'd have already bought one.
> I look at the SUVs, you don't get much more room vs a hatchback.


Yup, my golf has been good to me but it is turning 20 years old next year so I'm not sure how long it'll last.

I did see the ID4 has a tow rating but that's bigger than what I'd want.


----------



## like_to_retire

Yeah, I would like an EV for the experience, but the price is still pretty high. Gas costs wouldn't save me any money as I drive very little. 

I have had my eye on an Mazda MX30 to replace my present car which is a Mazda-3. I'm getting too old to drop down into the driver seat any more, so I would like the raised MX-30 to save my back. I see the MX-30 this year will have an EV version, plus an option for a gas rotary wankel range extender charger - that would be good for those that need extra distance.

One of my problems is that I only use my car for short distances about once a week. A 12volt battery usually does me about 2 years, so I was wondering how the EV's would accept those sort of conditions. I think the last thing anyone would want is to replace the big battery in an EV. No doubt I would still have to replace the EV's 12 volt battery fairly often.

I see Mazda is discontinuing the CX-3.

ltr


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> Hatchbacks have gone the way of the dinosaur in North America versus Asia and Europe. I've never understood why someone would want a sedan over a hatchback in the subcompact and compact categories either since sedans have no carrying capacity. But no matter, those who had hatchbacks are now buying the CUV/SUV versions* instead.
> 
> * Example: Why buy a Mazda 3 today when one can buy the CX-3 or CX-30 instead?


Umm, sedans are dying and getting eaten by hatchback CUVs. You can buy small CUVs as well. The only difference is that they ride a bit higher and cost more than older car-like hatchbacks. Automakers couldn't convince people to spend much on hatchback cars but the market is gobbling up higher prices CUVs that are basically the same thing but taller.


----------



## andrewf

like_to_retire said:


> One of my problems is that I only use my car for short distances about once a week. A 12volt battery usually does me about 2 years, so I was wondering how the EV's would accept those sort of conditions. I think the last thing anyone would want is to replace the big battery in an EV. No doubt I would still have to replace the EV's 12 volt battery fairly often.


Lithium ion batteries are totally different than lead acid 12v batteries. Most manufacturers warranty the pack for 8 years+ so you can be pretty confident it will last well longer than that, as they really don't want to be replacing many of them. Most EVs have sophisticated battery management systems with active heating and cooling to baby the battery pack to maximize its life.

I think you can get a used Nissan Leaf for $10kish. That would be suitable for driving <100km once per week.

It will take a long time for Teslas like Model 3/Y to become common enough to be reasonable used cars. Their resale values are crazy.


----------



## like_to_retire

andrewf said:


> I think you can get a used Nissan Leaf for $10kish. That would be suitable for driving <100km once per week.


Good info on the battery, thanks. I usually drive in the 2K a year range. I turn my cars in at about 10 years (that I always buy new) and they usually have about 20K on them. Makes quite a stir at the dealership. I never get what they're worth. 

I suppose you would leave an EV plugged in all the time to free the big battery from having to tend to the computers and heaters, etc. That would help save it's life I suppose. I know with my gas car, the 12 volt battery has to run a bunch of computers all the time, plus the theft system, and it's always asking if the key fob is nearby since I don't have a key, etc, etc. This kills a battery in Canada for sure and if you only drive once a week at most, they don't last long.

ltr


----------



## agent99

cainvest said:


> This is kind of sad, I've driven hatchbacks most of my life and really like them. I would look at a VW ID3 if they bring it to Canada.


Looks like it is supposed to be here this Fall



https://www.vw.ca/en/models/new-vehicles/id4.html



I think I should call the dealer!



> For the first year following its late summer 2021 launch, availability of ID.4 will be limited to select dealers located primarily in Quebec, and British Columbia to meet its ZEV mandate requirement in those provinces. Shortly afterwards, in early fall, availability in Ontario will follow. Specific information and a list of participating dealers will be published closer to the vehicle’s introduction.


----------



## bgc_fan

cainvest said:


> Yup, my golf has been good to me but it is turning 20 years old next year so I'm not sure how long it'll last.
> 
> I did see the ID4 has a tow rating but that's bigger than what I'd want.


FWIW, the ID4 is essentially the same as the Audi Q4 e-tron. They are both based on the same platform, it's just a question of style and finish. 2022 Audi Q4 e-tron Is the VW ID.4's Upscale Sibling.


----------



## Plugging Along

After reading this thread, I am leaning toward an EV or hybrid. I still have at least a year before I buy (when my oldest starts driving, she can have the old car). I drive about 400km a week (during pre-covid), it might be less later when the oldest starts driving herself. 

Now I am wondering which vehicles we should start researching. Its a while since I last researched a car. I usually get one every 12-14 years.


----------



## afulldeck

So I'm looking into a new vehicle as well. However, I'm finding the EVs just too small. More importantly, the range is changing rapidly. Because of the rapid change, leasing and ICE vehicle might be a better option....


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Umm, sedans are dying and getting eaten by hatchback CUVs. You can buy small CUVs as well. The only difference is that they ride a bit higher and cost more than older car-like hatchbacks. Automakers couldn't convince people to spend much on hatchback cars but the market is gobbling up higher prices CUVs that are basically the same thing but taller.


Well yeah, but given the Choice between a Golf and a Tiguan, I'd choose the Golf, Golf wagon is even better.

Also it's important to note that in the VW world "platform" isn't too much of a limit, they have various vehicles built off the same platform that are wildly different in final presentation.


----------



## andrewf

like_to_retire said:


> Good info on the battery, thanks. I usually drive in the 2K a year range. I turn my cars in at about 10 years (that I always buy new) and they usually have about 20K on them. Makes quite a stir at the dealership. I never get what they're worth.
> 
> I suppose you would leave an EV plugged in all the time to free the big battery from having to tend to the computers and heaters, etc. That would help save it's life I suppose. I know with my gas car, the 12 volt battery has to run a bunch of computers all the time, plus the theft system, and it's always asking if the key fob is nearby since I don't have a key, etc, etc. This kills a battery in Canada for sure and if you only drive once a week at most, they don't last long.
> 
> ltr


If you drive so few KMs, you're better off buying a 5 year old mid-mileage car every 5 years. You'll have a 10 year old low mileage car that is pretty appealing for entry level buyers. I have an 11 year old car that I feel embarassed to want to get rid of at 220km. It is in great condition except for some stone chips and dings, and runs great etc. I want to get a larger/more flexible vehicle. My next one will be 4-5 year old car with 80k-ish km. I'm waiting for now as both the new and used car market are tight due to supply disruptions.


----------



## andrewf

Honestly, with so few kms driven you might be better off forgetting the car and using Uber to get everywhere!


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Honestly, with so few kms driven you might be better off forgetting the car and using Uber to get everywhere!


I'm seriously considering this option for my next vehicle.


----------



## AltaRed

It's the (in)convenience factor that would stop me from using car sharing services on a regular basis. When I decide to do something, or go somewhere, it is often instantaneous...not 20 minutes from now. Plus I may make 'on the go' changes in where I want to go and when. I will only use Uber et al when I no longer have a DL or no longer go anywhere more than once a week. Our vehicle gets daily use, sometimes 2-3 times a day.


----------



## andrewf

I'm reminded of this recent video from a Canadian living in NL:


----------



## AltaRed

Plugging Along said:


> Now I am wondering which vehicles we should start researching. Its a while since I last researched a car. I usually get one every 12-14 years.


Decide first on body type, e.g. CUV, SUV, sedan, hatchback, and then size of vehicle, and eventually trim level/technology. There is a lot of googling that can be done within a market segment. 

For example, we were in the market last summer for the first time in 8 years because spouse was having trouble with a monster 7 passenger SUV (that she actually wanted originally back in 2012 to haul family around). We had decided on a compact 5 seater SUV/CUV to replace the monster SUV (we like the cargo capacity/flexibility of a CUV/SUV over a hatchback). We googled for vehicles in that segment and the various ratings from a host of 'review' sites, including for example Every 2021 Compact Crossover SUV Ranked from Worst to Best and https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/rankings/compact-suvs and short listed a half dozen for on site physical review and/or test drive.


----------



## cainvest

bgc_fan said:


> FWIW, the ID4 is essentially the same as the Audi Q4 e-tron. They are both based on the same platform, it's just a question of style and finish. 2022 Audi Q4 e-tron Is the VW ID.4's Upscale Sibling.


ID4 is just to big, I'd much rather have an ID3 provided it could tow 1000# and it should have a much lower sticker price. I wish they'd give back some of that carbon tax to make EVs priced much closer to their equivalent ICE models. FWIW, I just filled up my Golf and got 5.1l/100kms for 50% hwy (towing a small trailer) and the rest city driving. Would be a long time before a EV would pay off for me on a fuel vs electric comparison.


----------



## MrMatt

cainvest said:


> ID4 is just to big, I'd much rather have an ID3 provided it could tow 1000# and it should have a much lower sticker price. I wish they'd give back some of that carbon tax to make EVs priced much closer to their equivalent ICE models. FWIW, I just filled up my Golf and got 5.1l/100kms for 50% hwy (towing a small trailer) and the rest city driving. Would be a long time before a EV would pay off for me on a fuel vs electric comparison.


Must have the older one, I've got the 1.8T, I get just under 6L/100km.


----------



## cainvest

MrMatt said:


> Must have the older one, I've got the 1.8T, I get just under 6L/100km.


2002 TDI, the high mileage champ! 

If they still made this car I'd buy another in a second flat.


----------



## MrMatt

cainvest said:


> 2002 TDI, the high mileage champ!
> 
> If they still made this car I'd buy another in a second flat.


I know a few guys who have stupid miles on those, just shows a properly designed turbo is just fine.

But 170 hp in a Golf is a LOT of fun, even for the extra 1L/100km of fuel.


----------



## like_to_retire

andrewf said:


> Honestly, with so few kms driven you might be better off forgetting the car and using Uber to get everywhere!


With respect to Uber or Car Sharing apps compared to owning a car, it all comes down to cost versus convenience. For myself, I'm willing to pay and I want convenience, so I own a car.

ltr


----------



## andrewf

cainvest said:


> ID4 is just to big, I'd much rather have an ID3 provided it could tow 1000# and it should have a much lower sticker price. I wish they'd give back some of that carbon tax to make EVs priced much closer to their equivalent ICE models. FWIW, I just filled up my Golf and got 5.1l/100kms for 50% hwy (towing a small trailer) and the rest city driving. Would be a long time before a EV would pay off for me on a fuel vs electric comparison.


They are giving it back to you. It's up to you to decide how you spend it.


----------



## agent99

cainvest said:


> 2002 TDI, the high mileage champ!
> 
> If they still made this car I'd buy another in a second flat.


But if it was that good, shouldn't you still own it?  Or did VW buy it back? I still drive my '85 300D!


----------



## cainvest

agent99 said:


> But if it was that good, shouldn't you still own it?  Or did VW buy it back? I still drive my '85 300D!


I still drive it everyday (except in the winter) and will continue until it dies. It's starting to get some good rust spots now, not sure I want to do bodywork on it. Not that I'd sell mine but the buy back was for VW diesels after 2008.

Those 300Ds are a very sought after bullet proof motors and pretty much run on anything .. cooking oil, bio-diesel,etc!


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> They are giving it back to you. It's up to you to decide how you spend it.


Currently they are (some of it anyways) but I'm sure the rebate will disappear soon enough.


----------



## MrMatt

like_to_retire said:


> With respect to Uber or Car Sharing apps compared to owning a car, it all comes down to cost versus convenience. For myself, I'm willing to pay and I want convenience, so I own a car.
> 
> ltr


If I'm workign from home, $100wk to keep a car just doesn't seem worth it.


----------



## cainvest

MrMatt said:


> If I'm workign from home, $100wk to keep a car just doesn't seem worth it.


I work from home and having a car is definitely worth it. It really depends on your lifestyle.


----------



## MrMatt

cainvest said:


> I work from home and having a car is definitely worth it. It really depends on your lifestyle.


You can get a lot of rental cars or ubers for $5k/yr

And I say this as someone who loves to drive. But when I was in school, no car.


----------



## cainvest

MrMatt said:


> You can get a lot of rental cars or ubers for $5k/yr


Maybe but since I'm out of the city fishing, dirt biking (means I'm pulling a trailer) or other stuff 3-5 times a week I doubt an Uber or rental would work out for me.


----------



## MrMatt

cainvest said:


> Maybe but since I'm out of the city fishing, dirt biking (means I'm pulling a trailer) or other stuff 3-5 times a week I doubt an Uber or rental would work out for me.


Yeah, this is getting rid of my second car. my wife would still have hers.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

Just picked up a Tesla. Love it and wouldn’t go back to gas. I had all the same concerns as everyone and Tesla has it right. EV is here to stay. Once Tesla rolls out their $25000 model, it’ll be game-over for the other car makers.
Tesla is years ahead when it comes to technology. Still can’t understand why others that have been around 100 years+ can’t figure it out.


----------



## like_to_retire

Mortgage u/w said:


> Just picked up a Tesla. Love it and wouldn’t go back to gas. I had all the same concerns as everyone and Tesla has it right. EV is here to stay.


Can you tell us about the electrical charging station (level 2) you installed in your home and what the costs were?

ltr


----------



## pwm

Just bought a new 2021 Mazda CX-5 for my wife. Great car. Rated best Compact SUV at Car & Driver for the last 3 years, and I agree with their assessment. It has the regular aspirated 2.5l and 6 speed automatic. Just what I wanted, and it also didn't have some things I didn't want, like engine stop-start, (the stupidest thing I've ever heard of), cylinder de-activation, CVT, and turbo charging. Power and fuel economy mean nothing to me.

Did I look at an EV? No.


----------



## like_to_retire

pwm said:


> it also didn't have some things I didn't want, like engine stop-start, (the stupidest thing I've ever heard of),


When I'm on my bicycle at a stop light, it's surprising how many cars today shut off when they stop at a light - it's quite noticeable, and then they all restart when the light turns green.

Can you imaging how hard that is on a starter after a couple hundred thousand miles? Crazy. Of course when those cars start they all blow a little smoke out their exhausts - isn't that worse than idling?

I do believe there's an over-ride for that feature though?

ltr


----------



## MK7GTI

Mortgage u/w said:


> Just picked up a Tesla. Love it and wouldn’t go back to gas. I had all the same concerns as everyone and Tesla has it right. EV is here to stay. Once Tesla rolls out their $25000 model, it’ll be game-over for the other car makers.
> Tesla is years ahead when it comes to technology. Still can’t understand why others that have been around 100 years+ can’t figure it out.


Once Toyota, Honda, and Volkswagen put out a 25K EV model it will be game over for Tesla. How is the build quality on your hype machine? I think the Mach-E is a better option than the Tesla. Why did you choose a Tesla over that? The Mach-E is cheaper. Looks are up to each individual so I'll leave that alone.


----------



## pwm

_Once Toyota, Honda, and Volkswagen put out a 25K EV model it will be game over for Tesla. _

Right you are. And what's more, they won't be assembled in a tent.


----------



## agent99

Was just reading the Hagerty report on the Ford Maverick compact hybrid truck. Base just over US$20k and 40mpg. Looks like a winner to me. 


https://www.ford.com/trucks/maverick/2022/


----------



## AltaRed

pwm said:


> Just bought a new 2021 Mazda CX-5 for my wife. Great car. Rated best Compact SUV at Car & Driver for the last 3 years, and I agree with their assessment. It has the regular aspirated 2.5l and 6 speed automatic. Just what I wanted, and it also didn't have some things I didn't want, like engine stop-start, (the stupidest thing I've ever heard of), cylinder de-activation, CVT, and turbo charging. Power and fuel economy mean nothing to me.
> 
> Did I look at an EV? No.


I certainly agree about stupid stop-start, cylinder de-activation and CVT. Those things make sewing machines out of engines. I just about puked test driving the likes of a RAV4 and a CRV in comparison. The 2.5L turbo in our CX-5 is awesome and is now also available in the CX-30 too.

Power with a well designed turbo with no lag is fundamentally important to me on BC's 2 lane mountain highways where passing slow vehicles and 18 wheelers on an 8% grades is a valid safety concern. I like 310-320 ft lbs of torque in those situations to get by in mere seconds. That and their Sky-Activ technology will keep ICEs competitive.

A few articles...
Turbo - Deep Dive: Inside the Mazda Skyactiv 2.5T Turbo Engine
Sky-Activ -


----------



## cainvest

like_to_retire said:


> When I'm on my bicycle at a stop light, it's surprising how many cars today shut off when they stop at a light - it's quite noticeable, and then they all restart when the light turns green.
> 
> Can you imaging how hard that is on a starter after a couple hundred thousand miles? Crazy. Of course when those cars start they all blow a little smoke out their exhausts - isn't that worse than idling?
> 
> I do believe there's an over-ride for that feature though?
> 
> ltr


Some have an easy override button to turn ESS off, some don't.


----------



## cainvest

AltaRed said:


> I certainly agree about stupid stop-start, cylinder de-activation and CVT. Those things make sewing machines out of engines.


Yes, stop-start (ESS) is a PITA and a stupid idea. I have friends that use it and they've already replaced batteries (on less than 2 year old vehicles) because of it .... good for the environment right?

I thought I'd hate CVT as well but, at least on the Subaru, it's not bad at all.


----------



## AltaRed

I had a CVT on a Nissan and I never did get really used to it.


----------



## cainvest

AltaRed said:


> I had a CVT on a Nissan and I never did get really used to it.


I honestly don't think about it anymore (or notice it) when I drive the SO's subi. IIRC, they program in fake shift points to make it more like a regular transmission.


----------



## andrewf

like_to_retire said:


> Can you tell us about the electrical charging station (level 2) you installed in your home and what the costs were?
> 
> ltr


Tesla's home wall charger is $500. Installation will vary, but could be around $1k.


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> Tesla's home wall charger is $500. Installation will vary, but could be around $1k.


This cost could vary significantly depending on installation needs. If you have needed voltage and amperage already present where you want the outlet it'll obviously be cheaper. If you don't, the cost could go into the thousands depending on panel and/or wiring upgrades.


----------



## like_to_retire

Yeah, I see the standard level 2 charger requires 30 amp 240 volt, so that's 10 gauge wire. I would need about 60 feet of it, so fairly expensive along with the installation and the plug plate, etc. If it cost around $2000 to get all that installed, then that's about how much gas I use in 8-10 years. So it doesn't seem like it would pay me to have an EV, especially when EV's seem to be around $10K more than a regular car.

ltr


----------



## spiritwalker2222

like_to_retire said:


> Can you tell us about the electrical charging station (level 2) you installed in your home and what the costs were?
> 
> ltr


I have a level 2 charger at home, it cost about $200. They don't have to be expensive. The more expensive ones have some nice features, but all are completely unnecessary. The one I got is plain Jane from Amazon. When we had our house build I had a 220 volt outlet installed in the garage, just wish I had put the outlet closer to the car door. The charger I have has a 50ft cord so I can charge in the driveway where the car lives during the summer.


----------



## spiritwalker2222

Need to make room in the garage for this.


----------



## spiritwalker2222

like_to_retire said:


> Yeah, I see the standard level 2 charger requires 30 amp 240 volt, so that's 10 gauge wire. I would need about 60 feet of it, so fairly expensive along with the installation and the plug plate, etc. If it cost around $2000 to get all that installed, then that's about how much gas I use in 8-10 years. So it doesn't seem like it would pay me to have an EV, especially when EV's seem to be around $10K more than a regular car.
> 
> ltr


Wow, you don't drive much. I was using about 3k of gas per year on a compact car, Dodge Caliber with 1.8 L.

An EV only makes sense (financially and environmentally) if you drive a lot of Km's. Otherwise you are overpaying for something you don't use (enough) and the gas you save doesn't offset the environmental impact of the batteries.


----------



## like_to_retire

spiritwalker2222 said:


> Wow, you don't drive much. I was using about 3k of gas per year on a compact car, Dodge Caliber with 1.8 L.
> 
> An EV only makes sense (financially and environmentally) if you drive a lot of Km's. Otherwise you are overpaying for something you don't use (enough) and the gas you save doesn't offset the environmental impact of the batteries.


Yeah, thanks, that's the same view I have of EV's today. Especially for someone like myself who drives between 2K-2.5K a year. I just won't get the savings of it being electric. Not that EV's aren't kinda cool though. I throw the idea around for my next vehicle just because I'd like to own one for fun.

ltr


----------



## cainvest

spiritwalker2222 said:


> Need to make room in the garage for this.
> View attachment 21782


Now we're talking ... room for fun stuff!


----------



## Mortgage u/w

like_to_retire said:


> Can you tell us about the electrical charging station (level 2) you installed in your home and what the costs were?
> 
> ltr


Truth is, there are many charging options for home. The basic one which comes with the car plugs into a standard 120v outlet. I purchased an adapter for a 240v outlet which charges 5 times faster. My cost - less than $100.
Costs vary wildly depending what is installed and the option chosen.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

MK7GTI said:


> Once Toyota, Honda, and Volkswagen put out a 25K EV model it will be game over for Tesla. How is the build quality on your hype machine? I think the Mach-E is a better option than the Tesla. Why did you choose a Tesla over that? The Mach-E is cheaper. Looks are up to each individual so I'll leave that alone.


They have a fair chance but Tesla is leaps ahead of the game. I don’t think the others are capable of producing a low cost EV while Tesla is approaching production.

The only thing that is hyped about Tesla is some bad media from the mal-informed. The quality is great. Do you know a car manufacturer that is perfect? Neither do I. 

Clearly you haven’t done any research on EV. Mach-E is not cheaper than Tesla. Of course, it all depends which models you compare. 

I chose Tesla because it checked off all the right boxes: Looks, performance, price and technology.
There is a reason Tesla is stealing so much market share from the German luxuries. Do some research and then test drive one - and you’ll know why.


----------



## james4beach

Mortgage u/w said:


> When I'm on my bicycle at a stop light, it's surprising how many cars today shut off when they stop at a light - it's quite noticeable, and then they all restart when the light turns green.
> 
> Can you imaging how hard that is on a starter after a couple hundred thousand miles? Crazy


Yeah these are crazy. I started noticing this in rental cars a couple years ago... it's kind of ludicrous. I've also wondered how it's wearing out the starter and isn't it rough on the battery too?

Living in a cold climate, I wouldn't want the engine stopping at every stop sign, and drawing the massive current needed to restart the engine. Far better to keep the engine running continuously in a Canadian winter.



pwm said:


> Just bought a new 2021 Mazda CX-5 for my wife. Great car. Rated best Compact SUV at Car & Driver for the last 3 years, and I agree with their assessment. It has the regular aspirated 2.5l and 6 speed automatic. Just what I wanted, and it also didn't have some things I didn't want, like engine stop-start, (the stupidest thing I've ever heard of), cylinder de-activation, CVT, and turbo charging. Power and fuel economy mean nothing to me.


Congrats! I'm curious if you find a way to disable the stop-start. I hate that "feature". Gas is awfully cheap in the big scheme of things, and the auto stop-start isn't going to save much gas. But I'm sure it will wear out the starter and put unnecessary strain on the battery.

I drive all kinds of rental cars and it's really amazing how fuel efficient the modern cars are. Unless a person drives a huge number of km, the cost of gas is really quite minor. And I certainly am not going to spend an extra $10,000 to buy an expensive luxury car (Tesla) for perhaps a fuel savings of a few hundred bucks a year.


----------



## AltaRed

Pwm said he was glad he didn't have to get stop-start nor other junk like CVT and cylinder de-activation. Mazda is a driver's car designed to be driven.


----------



## sags

We have the auto-off feature on our vehicles and it can be shut off but you have to push the button every time you start the car.

From what I have read, the engineering accounted for increased starts and stops and made the starters more durable than they were previously.

The stop-start isn't designed to save gas. It is to save emissions from cars running on idle. I used to turn it off but got used to it because it works so well.

Just touch a floor pedal and it starts up instantly.

The EV I would love to own is the new EV Corvette. They say it is like driving a fighter jet.


----------



## cainvest

james4beach said:


> Living in a cold climate, I wouldn't want the engine stopping at every stop sign, and drawing the massive current needed to restart the engine. Far better to keep the engine running continuously in a Canadian winter.


It automatically shuts itself off in colder weather or if the engine isn't warmed up yet. Also, if you learn how to drive with ESS, they don't shut off the engine at stop signs.



james4beach said:


> I drive all kinds of rental cars and it's really amazing how fuel efficient the modern cars are. Unless a person drives a huge number of km, the cost of gas is really quite minor. And I certainly am not going to spend an extra $10,000 to buy an expensive luxury car (Tesla) for perhaps a fuel savings of a few hundred bucks a year.


Fuel costs can really add up and you don't have to drive a huge number of km's. For many I bet it's the second most costly item after purchase price.


----------



## AltaRed

I agree fuel costs do add up. For the average new (efficient) ICE at perhaps 8L/100km @ 10,000 km/yr, that is 800 litres @ $1.20 or so which is close to $1000/yr. Many folk would be well over that (higher mileage and perhaps $1.40/l gasoline coming your way soon). Still, it would take upwards of 10 years to offset the incremental capital cost of an EV. It will likely need to reduce to a 5 year break even or less to get people to commit to an EV...or significant subsidization, or both.


----------



## cainvest

It would be difficult to recoup fuel costs on ICE vs EV given the price differential, they really need to bring prices down without gov. incentives. 

Just did a quick calculation for my own daily driver and the amount I've spent on fuel is now basically equal to my original purchase price!


----------



## MrMatt

Mortgage u/w said:


> They have a fair chance but Tesla is leaps ahead of the game. I don’t think the others are capable of producing a low cost EV while Tesla is approaching production.


I think Ford and GM are easily capable of producing low cost EVs, and they will be doing it in significant volume very soon.


----------



## james4beach

AltaRed said:


> Pwm said he was glad he didn't have to get stop-start nor other junk like CVT and cylinder de-activation. Mazda is a driver's car designed to be driven.


You're right, I misread that post.



AltaRed said:


> Still, it would take upwards of 10 years to offset the incremental capital cost of an EV. It will likely need to reduce to a 5 year break even or less to get people to commit to an EV...or significant subsidization, or both.


There will be individual differences in fuel consumption. I've only spent about $150 on gas this year so far, mostly because I can walk and bicycle to the places I need to go. A big advantage of living in an urban area.

Those who chose to live in suburban and rural areas will travel much longer distances and use more fuel, due to their chosen lifestyles. But as you point out, even with your higher fuel use figure, that's still a large # of years to offset the additional cost of the EV.


----------



## MrMatt

Start stop has a few upgrades, also they use different engines.
For example the F150 replaced the base V6 with a I4 Turbo, put on a slightly bigger starter and added stop start. The much smaller I4 doesn't have the same needs as the larger V6.

I remember alternators/starters being a thing you replaced back in the 80s/90's, not so much the last decade. 
Secondly if you think a starter motor will die after a few thousand rev's, what do you think of all those electric cars?

As for government incentives, fuel economy is a HUGE deal. CAFE standards are much more expensive than a few dollars in a slightly beefier starter.


----------



## pwm

Mazda has developed a stop-start technology they call SISS (Smart Idle Stop System), where they stop the motor with one piston positioned just past top dead centre, then use a burst of fuel from the injector to that cylinder to start the motor. The fuel ignites like a diesel because of the hot cylinder head and valves, and the starting motor is not required. Amazing technology, but I still think it's a stupid idea to begin with and would never buy a vehicle with such unnecessary complexity.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

cainvest said:


> It would be difficult to recoup fuel costs on ICE vs EV given the price differential, they really need to bring prices down without gov. incentives.
> 
> Just did a quick calculation for my own daily driver and the amount I've spent on fuel is now basically equal to my original purchase price!


Depends the EV you purchase. You have choices and prices vary. The Model 3 for example, is comparable in price to the luxury sedans. The Leaf, Kona, Golf all all start in the mid-forties, before incentives.

Aside from fuel savings, there are also maintenance savings. No more oil changes, air-filters, spark plugs, radiator flushes.....brakes on EVs usually last well over 6 years due to regenerative braking. When you add all that up, the savings is significant.


----------



## MrMatt

pwm said:


> Mazda has developed a stop-start technology they call SISS (Smart Idle Stop System), where they stop the motor with one piston positioned just past top dead centre, then use a burst of fuel from the injector to that cylinder to start the motor. The fuel ignites like a diesel because of the hot cylinder head and valves, and the starting motor is not required. Amazing technology, but I still think it's a stupid idea to begin with and would never buy a vehicle with such unnecessary complexity.


I'm about 60% going to buy a hybrid for my next vehicle. It really just takes stop/start to the next level.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

MrMatt said:


> I'm about 60% going to buy a hybrid for my next vehicle. It really just takes stop/start to the next level.


Why not consider full electric?


----------



## MrMatt

Mortgage u/w said:


> Why not consider full electric?


Range anxiety/lifestyle fit.
... maybe in a year or two as the charging infrastructure improves.

i'd almost go Tesla, because of the network, but Teslas attitude and approach to things is concerning.
I don't like that they changed driving dynamics via an OTA update. I'm simply a bit concerned with their approach to safety.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

MrMatt said:


> Range anxiety/lifestyle fit.
> ... maybe in a year or two as the charging infrastructure improves.
> 
> i'd almost go Tesla, because of the network, but Teslas attitude and approach to things is concerning.
> I don't like that they changed driving dynamics via an OTA update. I'm simply a bit concerned with their approach to safety.


Range has greatly improved over the years where you now have a similar range to a full tank of gas. In terms of Tesla, they offer over 420kms range and an option of over 560kms if needed. I find OTA updates very interesting and view this as an advantage. They are used to keep the car up to date with latest developments - they actually managed to increase range on a past update. As for charging, they definitely have a large infrastructure and you also benefit from all the other infrastructures out there. Its all a matter of adaptation - you always leave your home on a full charge.

I had all the same concerns and after endless research and videos, I was able to take the plunge. Have to say, it takes driving to a whole new experience.


----------



## cainvest

Mortgage u/w said:


> Depends the EV you purchase. You have choices and prices vary. The Model 3 for example, is comparable in price to the luxury sedans. The Leaf, Kona, Golf all all start in the mid-forties, before incentives.
> 
> Aside from fuel savings, there are also maintenance savings. No more oil changes, air-filters, spark plugs, radiator flushes.....brakes on EVs usually last well over 6 years due to regenerative braking. When you add all that up, the savings is significant.


You're looking at $15,000 to $20,000 more for an EV and no way you'll make that back in fuel and maintenance costs.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

cainvest said:


> You're looking at $15,000 to $20,000 more for an EV and no way you'll make that back in fuel and maintenance costs.


All depends on the category of cars you are comparing. 

At an average of $1.25/liter, gas consumption is easily $2500(10L/100kms) to $5000(20L/100kms) a year for someone travelling 20,000 kms per year. EV will consume less than $300 in electricity.

Maintenance costs vary greatly but on average and according to some articles, seems to hover $300-$600 per year. EV: $0

Over a 5 year period, ICE cost will average $14,000 to $28,000 in gas and maintenance alone. EV: $1500.

Depreciation of EV seems to be less than ICE for some reason. Not sure I totally agree but we are seeing some higher resale values with EVs.

I guess everyone will have different lifestyles and will justify their expenses their own way. I'm not disagreeing with the price discrepancy - I think its important to highlight all the differences before making a choice.


----------



## MrMatt

cainvest said:


> You're looking at $15,000 to $20,000 more for an EV and no way you'll make that back in fuel and maintenance costs.


Ford Escape Hybrids are nearly the same price. Plugin hybrids are only slighlty more.

I think for taxis/deliver vehicles EVs make a great solution.


----------



## cainvest

Mortgage u/w said:


> All depends on the category of cars you are comparing.
> 
> At an average of $1.25/liter, gas consumption is easily $2500(10L/100kms) to $5000(20L/100kms) a year for someone travelling 20,000 kms per year. EV will consume less than $300 in electricity.
> 
> Maintenance costs vary greatly but on average and according to some articles, seems to hover $300-$600 per year. EV: $0
> 
> Over a 5 year period, ICE cost will average $14,000 to $28,000 in gas and maintenance alone. EV: $1500.
> 
> Depreciation of EV seems to be less than ICE for some reason. Not sure I totally agree but we are seeing some higher resale values with EVs.
> 
> I guess everyone will have different lifestyles and will justify their expenses their own way. I'm not disagreeing with the price discrepancy - I think its important to highlight all the differences before making a choice.


I'd be replacing my VW Golf so new cost would likely be ~26K for ICE vs ~45K for an EV (without taxes).

My current VW uses about $1000 / year in fuel based on the last 20 years of use, lifetime avg of 6.3L/100kms.
My maintenance costs are likely around $70-80/yr for ICE related items.
Depreciation really doesn't matter to me, I drive my daily driver vehicles into the ground.


----------



## off.by.10

Mortgage u/w said:


> At an average of $1.25/liter, gas consumption is easily $2500(10L/100kms) to $5000(20L/100kms) a year for someone travelling 20,000 kms per year. EV will consume less than $300 in electricity.
> 
> Maintenance costs vary greatly but on average and according to some articles, seems to hover $300-$600 per year. EV: $0
> 
> Over a 5 year period, ICE cost will average $14,000 to $28,000 in gas and maintenance alone. EV: $1500.


I'm surprised to see you posting such strange numbers, you usually seem to have more researched posts. 20 l/100km is a very large truck. There is no EV with similar capacity in a price range where you'd still care about how much things cost. And only the smallest and most efficient EVs will do 20000 km on $300 of electricity. That number will go up if you compare to gas car doing 10 l/100 km and way way up once you reach the large truck size. So you should be comparing to the smallest, most efficient gas cars.

Also: $0 on maintenance? Yeah right... well technically you can do $0 maintenance on a gas car too. It won't be good for either kind long term.

Also very important: not everyone drives 20000 km a year. If you drive half that, making up the cost difference on gas and maintenance does not happen at current EV prices.


----------



## cainvest

off.by.10 said:


> Also: $0 on maintenance? Yeah right... well technically you can do $0 maintenance on a gas car too. It won't be good for either kind long term.


Also add in the battery replacement cost if you're keeping it long term ... some articles are showing $16,000 (US?) for a Model 3.


----------



## andrewf

james4beach said:


> Yeah these are crazy. I started noticing this in rental cars a couple years ago... it's kind of ludicrous. I've also wondered how it's wearing out the starter and isn't it rough on the battery too?


They have been common in Europe for some time. The starters are designed for the additional load.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

off.by.10 said:


> I'm surprised to see you posting such strange numbers, you usually seem to have more researched posts. 20 l/100km is a very large truck. There is no EV with similar capacity in a price range where you'd still care about how much things cost. And only the smallest and most efficient EVs will do 20000 km on $300 of electricity. That number will go up if you compare to gas car doing 10 l/100 km and way way up once you reach the large truck size. So you should be comparing to the smallest, most efficient gas cars.
> 
> Also: $0 on maintenance? Yeah right... well technically you can do $0 maintenance on a gas car too. It won't be good for either kind long term.
> 
> Also very important: not everyone drives 20000 km a year. If you drive half that, making up the cost difference on gas and maintenance does not happen at current EV prices.


The thing is, the research on gas efficiencies and maintenance costs vary so much that I cannot find any viable source. Yes, 20L/100kms is high - just wanted to highlight the variances. Maybe 10l/100kms is closer to the average. As for electricity, I'm basing it on my province which is rather cheap compared to RoC. 

EV with similar capacity/price range: Model 3 vs BMW 3 series/Audi A4. 

Maintenance on EV truly is $0. There is no engine or transmission to maintain. The motor is a closed casing and cannot be breached.



cainvest said:


> Also add in the battery replacement cost if you're keeping it long term ... some articles are showing $16,000 (US?) for a Model 3.


Battery and drive units on Tesla are guaranteed 8 years!


----------



## MrMatt

Mortgage u/w said:


> The thing is, the research on gas efficiencies and maintenance costs vary so much that I cannot find any viable source. Yes, 20L/100kms is high - just wanted to highlight the variances. Maybe 10l/100kms is closer to the average. As for electricity, I'm basing it on my province which is rather cheap compared to RoC.
> 
> EV with similar capacity/price range: Model 3 vs BMW 3 series/Audi A4.
> 
> Maintenance on EV truly is $0. There is no engine or transmission to maintain. The motor is a closed casing and cannot be breached.
> 
> Battery and drive units on Tesla are guaranteed 8 years!


Tires, wipers, washer fluid?


----------



## Mortgage u/w

MrMatt said:


> Tires, wipers, washer fluid?


Sure, but you don't buy tires on a yearly basis. 

Most recurring maintenance on a gas car is non-existent for EV.


----------



## MrMatt

Mortgage u/w said:


> Sure, but you don't buy tires on a yearly basis.
> 
> Most recurring maintenance on a gas car is non-existent for EV.


Yes, but "Maintenance on EV truly is $0. " isnt' true.
It's very low, but not zero

On my Golf I've had 4 oil changes in 5 years of ownership.
Plus wipers and winter tires.


----------



## cainvest

Mortgage u/w said:


> The thing is, the research on gas efficiencies and maintenance costs vary so much that I cannot find any viable source. Yes, 20L/100kms is high - just wanted to highlight the variances. Maybe 10l/100kms is closer to the average. As for electricity, I'm basing it on my province which is rather cheap compared to RoC.


Average Canadian numbers show 8.9L/100kms and average distance is 15,200 kms/year for a better comparison.



Mortgage u/w said:


> Battery and drive units on Tesla are guaranteed 8 years!


And after the 8 years?

Say you keep the Model 3 for 15 years, right in the middle of the stated battery life expectancy of 10-20 years (depending on charge cycles or mileage driven). Best estimates I've seen show a cost between $13,000-16,000 US so let's just put it at $15,000 and not even convert to CDN $. So that means you need to add $1000 per year to your maintenance costs!

This doesn't take into account the drive system (motor) which I gather has wear as well, maybe another $3000-5000 tap on that one?


----------



## Mortgage u/w

cainvest said:


> And after the 8 years?
> 
> Say you keep the Model 3 for 15 years, right in the middle of the stated battery life expectancy of 10-20 years (depending on charge cycles or mileage driven). Best estimates I've seen show a cost between $13,000-16,000 US so let's just put it at $15,000 and not even convert to CDN $. So that means you need to add $1000 per year to your maintenance costs!
> 
> This doesn't take into account the drive system (motor) which I gather has wear as well, maybe another $3000-5000 tap on that one?


How much does a gas engine and transmission cost to replace?


----------



## MrMatt

Mortgage u/w said:


> How much does a gas engine and transmission cost to replace?


Don't know, but a gas tank is cheap. 
Unless you buy a Dodge I don't think you need to worry about replacing the transmission, and I don't think anyone makes bad engines these days.

Most vehicles are disposable anyway these days.
Pop the airbags, the car is a write off.


----------



## cainvest

Mortgage u/w said:


> How much does a gas engine and transmission cost to replace?


I personally don't know, never had to replace an engine or transmission ever, in any car I've owned. 
I have replaced one alternator ($275), one water pump ($130) and one timing belt ($800) in my current car over the past 20 years.

Edit: Add two batteries to that, $80 (got a deal) and $170.


----------



## cainvest

I think for the average person that doesn't keep a vehicle for more than 8 years the building EV costs may not matter. Of course we could also see the resale prices for EVs drop significantly (due to battery/motor costs) after the warranty is over. In other words, if you buy an EV you're likely wise to sell if off before the 8 years and take the price hit on a new(er) one again.


----------



## Spudd

There's also brakes to maintain.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

cainvest said:


> I personally don't know, never had to replace an engine or transmission ever, in any car I've owned.


Exactly - we can't assume that an EV will need to have its motor and battery replaced either.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

Spudd said:


> There's also brakes to maintain.


Thanks to regenerative braking, brakes on EV last much longer than on traditional cars.


----------



## AltaRed

There is a lot of drive by exaggeration being tossed about here. The only major differences in maintenance is drive train maintenance on an ICE (engine, transmission, alternator, water cooling system) versus battery replacement, or more likely, battery heating/cooling systems in an EV.

EVs come with all the other kinds of maintenance like an ICE. That all said, it would be unusual to have much more than fluid replacements in an ICE these days for the first 100,000 to 160,000 km assuming one didn't buy a junk brand product in the first place.

The only ICE specific maintenance I've ever done on my 15 year old Infiniti with 205,000 km is oil and antifreeze changes, air filter changes, one battery and one set of spark plugs. Anything else would have been common to an EV albeit I accept that brakes would be less maintenance frequency due to regenerative braking...assuming the associated components for that system don't fail at some point.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

AltaRed said:


> There is a lot of drive by exaggeration being tossed about here. The only major differences in maintenance is drive train maintenance on an ICE (engine, transmission, alternator, water cooling system) versus battery replacement, or more likely, battery heating/cooling systems in an EV.
> 
> EVs come with all the other kinds of maintenance like an ICE. That all said, it would be unusual to have much more than fluid replacements in an ICE these days for the first 100,000 to 160,000 km assuming one didn't buy a junk brand product in the first place.
> 
> The only ICE specific maintenance I've ever done on my 15 year old Infiniti with 205,000 km is oil and antifreeze changes, air filter changes, one battery and one set of spark plugs. Anything else would have been common to an EV albeit I accept that brakes would be less maintenance frequency due to regenerative braking...assuming the associated components for that system don't fail at some point.


What most people do to maintain their vehicles vs what manufacture recommends is two different things. Some manufacture suggestions are exaggerated where it can build the anxiety to follow-through in case it voids warranty. That could become costly. No car operates the same nor are any of them perfect.

Maintenance schedule/cost should not be the main reason why someone would choose EV over ICE. Its really the whole experience behind it. Its great to know there is less maintenance on an EV and that may attract some people.

For the sake of this thread, I still think EVs are headed in the right direction and are here to stay. The technology has been proven to be successful and as more manufactures build them, more will embrace them.


----------



## AltaRed

I don't disagree they are here to stay. I think they will be a majority of newly registered vehicles on the road by 2030. Doesn't mean they are the most economic choice.


----------



## james4beach

cainvest said:


> Also add in the battery replacement cost if you're keeping it long term ... some articles are showing $16,000 (US?) for a Model 3.


And that's assuming that the Tesla company _still exists_ in a few years. That's one of my greatest concerns actually. If I was going electric, I'd probably go with a better established auto maker.

I also would not tolerate this nonsense of automatic wireless updates to my car. No way.


----------



## cainvest

Mortgage u/w said:


> Exactly - we can't assume that an EV will need to have its motor and battery replaced either.


Fair enough ... we really can say much yet on the EV batteries as many models haven't been around for 10+ years. Potential bad news is a battery replacement after 10 years would be worth more than the car, if needed.

Here's one comment from a company that services older Tesla's ....

_With early examples of the Model S getting up there too, some are either over their mileage allotment for warranty or are ready to expire due to age. Battery degradation has become an apparent issue and some owners are already having their packs repaired by Gruber. After all, it's hard to justify a complete $22,000 battery pack replacement on a car that's worth just $25,000—and the same job on a Model 3 isn't much cheaper at $16,000._


----------



## MrMatt

AltaRed said:


> I don't disagree they are here to stay. I think they will be a majority of newly registered vehicles on the road by 2030. Doesn't mean they are the most economic choice.


I actually think for many cases the are the most economical choice.
But for others they aren't.

I really think hybrids are a wonderful bridge technology, and I think if you really want to push EV,s plugin hybrids make a lot of sense.
I expect a lot of Ford Hybrid users will transition to Ford full electrics.

Also the VW electrics look neat and fit into an interesting niche, plus I think people in North America forget VW is HUGE.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

james4beach said:


> I also would not tolerate this nonsense of automatic wireless updates to my car. No way.


What concern do you have? I find this feature rather neat.
After all, we tolerate this with our cell phones.....


----------



## MrMatt

Mortgage u/w said:


> What concern do you have? I find this feature rather neat.
> After all, we tolerate this with our cell phones.....


What happens if you go to the mall, hop in for a quick pickup, come out and find you have a different steering ratio, and the brake response is different.
That is unsafe, and Tesla has done it.

Every time I hop in a new vehicle it takes me a bit of time to get used to the dynamics. Doing so in a crowded parking lot simply isn't safe.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

MrMatt said:


> What happens if you go to the mall, hop in for a quick pickup, come out and find you have a different steering ratio, and the brake response is different.
> That is unsafe, and Tesla has done it.
> 
> Every time I hop in a new vehicle it takes me a bit of time to get used to the dynamics. Doing so in a crowded parking lot simply isn't safe.


I wouldn’t say all updates are as drastic to the point you forget how to drive the car.
Besides, you get to choose when you download the update.


----------



## spiritwalker2222

Spudd said:


> There's also brakes to maintain.


False, EV's still have traditional brakes that need to be maintained yearly like a traditional car. Yes your pads and rotors should last longer.


----------



## MrMatt

spiritwalker2222 said:


> False, EV's still have traditional brakes that need to be maintained yearly like a traditional car. Yes your pads and rotors should last longer.


?
They have friction brakes.
They don't need to be "maintained yearly" in either an EV or an ICE powered car.

If you don't use them very much, they won't wear out, which is why they don't wear out in EVs, you almost never use them.


----------



## like_to_retire

MrMatt said:


> They have friction brakes.
> They don't need to be "maintained yearly" in either an EV or an ICE powered car.


Yeah, I buy a new car, keep it for around 8 years and then get another one. I don't look at the brakes or anything for that matter. If you buy a new one, they last 8 years with a simple $70 oil change every year. That's it. They check all the fluids and that stuff during the oil change.

ltr


----------



## spiritwalker2222

The brakes of cars are on sliders (unless you buy an expensive car), on a normal car the sliders start to bind after 2 years and then you get uneven wear. At least that is my experience. It is worse on an EV as the brakes are used less.


----------



## MrMatt

spiritwalker2222 said:


> The brakes of cars are on sliders (unless you buy an expensive car), on a normal car the sliders start to bind after 2 years and then you get uneven wear. At least that is my experience. It is worse on an EV as the brakes are used less.


I've had a few vehicles, most lasted 4+ years before needing brakes.
the Dodge needs brake work annually, never buying another chrysler.


----------



## AltaRed

MrMatt said:


> I've had a few vehicles, most lasted 4+ years before needing brakes.
> the Dodge needs brake work annually, never buying another chrysler.


LOL. There is far more wrong with that brand than just brakes. Maybe the French portion of Stellantis can do a lobotomy on some of their brands. A number of them are rather sick.


----------



## MrMatt

AltaRed said:


> LOL. There is far more wrong with that brand than just brakes. Maybe the French portion of Stellantis can do a lobotomy on some of their brands. A number of them are rather sick.


ohh I know... But brakes every 10k is ridiculous.
But stow'n'go is just wonderful.


----------



## andrewf

cainvest said:


> Average Canadian numbers show 8.9L/100kms and average distance is 15,200 kms/year for a better comparison.
> 
> 
> And after the 8 years?
> 
> Say you keep the Model 3 for 15 years, right in the middle of the stated battery life expectancy of 10-20 years (depending on charge cycles or mileage driven). Best estimates I've seen show a cost between $13,000-16,000 US so let's just put it at $15,000 and not even convert to CDN $. So that means you need to add $1000 per year to your maintenance costs!
> 
> This doesn't take into account the drive system (motor) which I gather has wear as well, maybe another $3000-5000 tap on that one?


Do you realistically see someone putting a $15k battery pack in a 14 year old Model 3?

The way I see it, the battery pack won't fail in most cases. It could be that it degrades by a larger % than you are satisfied with for your use. in that case, you can sell the car on to someone who doesn't need longer range (in-town runabout).


----------



## andrewf

james4beach said:


> And that's assuming that the Tesla company _still exists_ in a few years. That's one of my greatest concerns actually. If I was going electric, I'd probably go with a better established auto maker.
> 
> I also would not tolerate this nonsense of automatic wireless updates to my car. No way.


I wonder if you should be worried about legacy OEMs going out of business, instead.

And the whole industry is moving to OTA updates. If you don't like it, you can disable the radio, but you'll be forgoing software updates and connected car features.


----------



## james4beach

Mortgage u/w said:


> What concern do you have? I find this feature rather neat.
> After all, we tolerate this with our cell phones.....


With a car that I trust with my life every day, I want something that is fundamentally more solidly designed and does not require constant updates.

There is also the possibility of making mistakes with updates. Various software updates over the years have made operating systems unstable, for example. I don't want to take those kinds of chances when something I depend on to stay alive.

I want a machine which is rock solid by design, right off the shelf. What on earth do they have to keep updating, anyway? The product should work flawlessly once it's off the assembly line.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> With a car that I trust with my life every day, I want something that is fundamentally more solidly designed and does not require constant updates.
> 
> There is also the possibility of making mistakes with updates. Various software updates over the years have made operating systems unstable, for example. I don't want to take those kinds of chances when something I depend on to stay alive.
> 
> I want a machine which is rock solid by design, right off the shelf. What on earth do they have to keep updating, anyway? The product should work flawlessly once it's off the assembly line.


And you claim to work in tech?
Maybe you didn't notice, but most software has nearly unending upgrades and bug fixes.


----------



## james4beach

MrMatt said:


> And you claim to work in tech?
> Maybe you didn't notice, but most software has nearly unending upgrades and bug fixes.


Yes, in fact I work with high reliability systems.

In most places, updates are generally done in a very sloppy way by programmers. And I don't trust Tesla (the company) to do them properly with reliability in mind.

And I say this with a VERY good basis because the firm I worked for actually worked together with Tesla's people on some software. We've worked with their programmers and seen their code. We were not impressed with what we found -- so there's an insider's view for you.

Personally, I don't trust Tesla's code, and constant software updates (by flaky programmers) is a really bad idea.


----------



## cm2u

Ponderling said:


> I have been driving a Volt for 3 years. Love it. Not all electric, but I put something like 70L of fuel into it in a typical year for trips that are beyond its electric range. The cost to drive on electric is about one half o ne third the cost to drive this thing on gas. On gas it gets 5.2l/100km.
> 
> So the next car will have a larger electric range and will be all electric.


I'm not understanding how your cost to drive electric could be so high. How much do you pay per KWH in your area that you are using for charging?


----------



## cm2u

milhouse said:


> Pretty sure our next car is going to be fully electric, partly due to the fact I don't see us getting a new car until another 5 to 10 years which will allow for more innovation and infrastructure investment in the mean time.
> Range is a big consideration for us too because we like going on road trips. I don't see range being a significant issue for daily driving in the city. However, this Wendover video seems to suggest we're not too far off from expected range requirements so instead the issue going forward is fast charging. Charging requires inverters to convert AC to DC. Fast charging requires larger, pretty expensive inverters. And there's not enough supercharging stations which apparently would be helped with plug standardization instead of proprietary versions.


Batteries that swap out could solve the charging dilemma but engineering that would be quite something. And one battery should fit a multitude of cars. Imagine sitting down with car makers and getting them to agree to anything! I think the future is autonomous cars with batteries that swap out. We'll be working while in the car so if it takes a little longer (like if it needs a battery swap) it won't matter so much as it would if we were staring out the window like a total dolt. Autonomous driving means we won't need licenses, no more drunk driving, no more people falling asleep or having strokes or heart attacks and driving into a sidewalk of people. It will start on the most heavily trafficked routes and gradually expand as trust increases.


----------



## cm2u

Another huge step forward will be solar panels built into the body panels and roof that charge the car when you're at work all day. Reflectors may hugely increase solar yield as then all the panels could be producing electricity. They're nowhere near ready yet but give it 2-4 years and I bet this will be viable.


----------



## bgc_fan

cm2u said:


> And one battery should fit a multitude of cars. Imagine sitting down with car makers and getting them to agree to anything!


It's not that far off. A number of car brands are really the same company and they can use a common platform for ease of development. The VW group comes to mind, and there's the partnership between Subaru and Toyota. Mercedes-Chrysler would be another one.



cm2u said:


> Another huge step forward will be solar panels built into the body panels and roof that charge the car when you're at work all day. Reflectors may hugely increase solar yield as then all the panels could be producing electricity. They're nowhere near ready yet but give it 2-4 years and I bet this will be viable.


Unlikely for a while. I'm not sure where you want to set up the reflectors, but even then, there's a limit to current PV technology. There's not enough surface area to make it reasonable. For example, the current candidate is Lightyear One, which claims to get 12 km range in 1 hr of sunshine. But whether that's viable in real world conditions is another question.


----------



## andrewf

james4beach said:


> Personally, I don't trust Tesla's code, and constant software updates (by flaky programmers) is a really bad idea.


You have no basis for saying Tesla developers are flaky. There are some top flight people working for Tesla. Andrej Karpathy is excellent and has been head of Tesla's autonomy division for several years.

Tesla also has an excellent track record for the security of their vehicles. They are a software company more than any other car maker. There are some truly horrifying examples of poor security by major OEMs. Chrysler had a security flaw that let someone remotely deactivate a car while it was in use, despite no longer owning the car!









Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway—With Me in It


I was driving 70 mph on the edge of downtown St. Louis when the exploit began to take hold.




www.wired.com





It seems you all are fetishizing your dislike of Musk. You may dislike him, but to assume the alternatives are better is quite the leap!


----------



## andrewf

cm2u said:


> Batteries that swap out could solve the charging dilemma but engineering that would be quite something. And one battery should fit a multitude of cars. Imagine sitting down with car makers and getting them to agree to anything! I think the future is autonomous cars with batteries that swap out. We'll be working while in the car so if it takes a little longer (like if it needs a battery swap) it won't matter so much as it would if we were staring out the window like a total dolt. Autonomous driving means we won't need licenses, no more drunk driving, no more people falling asleep or having strokes or heart attacks and driving into a sidewalk of people. It will start on the most heavily trafficked routes and gradually expand as trust increases.


Why would the batteries need to swap in a world with autonomous robotaxis? They only need to have enough battery capacity to make it through a typical day of driving. Battery swap is a bad idea, and doomed to failure.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> It seems you all are fetishizing your dislike of Musk. You may dislike him, but to assume the alternatives are better is quite the leap!


It is fun to poke and demonize egomaniacs and their fanboys. 

I ultimately don't much care if Tesla succeeds or not. They have disrupted the auto industry and that is a good thing. Until there is a service centre in my city though, Tesla is a non-starter.


----------



## james4beach

andrewf said:


> You have no basis for saying Tesla developers are flaky. There are some top flight people working for Tesla. Andrej Karpathy is excellent and has been head of Tesla's autonomy division for several years.


Hilarious that you'd tell me that I have *no basis.* Did _you_ work together with Tesla? Because our company actually did.

Sure I have a basis. We actually saw their code... and we saw their development process. We saw how they work, and what they produce. And it didn't look good.

Perhaps things have improved over the last few years. I'm talking about something from many years ago.


----------



## andrewf

I'll have to take your word for it. Nonetheless, their track record is good. There have been no disastrous vulnerabilities detected and revealed despite many people poking around. Certainly nothing on the level of the Jeep example I mentioned earlier. Yet you don't seem to share any similar concerns about using Chrysler/Stellantis products.


----------



## Ponderling

cm2u said:


> I'm not understanding how your cost to drive electric could be so high. How much do you pay per KWH in your area that you are using for charging?


The price per kwh is only part of the electric bill. I add in the distribution levy, regulatory levy, account fee share etc. plus hst to make cost comparable to the all in cost of buying retail gasoline.


----------



## hboy54

spiritwalker2222 said:


> The brakes of cars are on sliders (unless you buy an expensive car), on a normal car the sliders start to bind after 2 years and then you get uneven wear. At least that is my experience. It is worse on an EV as the brakes are used less.


This. My brakes cost me money not because I wear them out but because they rust and bind. EV won't change this fact.


----------



## spiritwalker2222

We're getting into the weeds here. Maintenance costs, or the lack of maintenance costs are not going to make EV's financially viable to a greater market. It's the battery, a breakthrough is needed. When will that be, 10 years, 20 years? We don't know.


----------



## MrMatt

spiritwalker2222 said:


> We're getting into the weeds here. Maintenance costs, or the lack of maintenance costs are not going to make EV's financially viable to a greater market. It's the battery, a breakthrough is needed. When will that be, 10 years, 20 years? We don't know.


If people would accept 100km range vehicles, I think we could do EV's today at basically the same cost as ICE for mid range vehicles.

Actually if you could buy a 100km range vehicle (in town) with rental "extended range" packs you throw in the trunk for longer range trips and I think that would spur adoption.


----------



## spiritwalker2222

MrMatt said:


> If people would accept 100km range vehicles, I think we could do EV's today at basically the same cost as ICE for mid range vehicles.
> 
> Actually if you could buy a 100km range vehicle (in town) with rental "extended range" packs you throw in the trunk for longer range trips and I think that would spur adoption.


Your not throwing a battery pack. It would be about 1,000 pounds.


----------



## MrMatt

spiritwalker2222 said:


> Your not throwing a battery pack. It would be about 1,000 pounds.


I was thinking more of a battery swapping.








Tesla Model S - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





It takes about 21kWh for 100km, so about 200lbs, which would require lifting equipment, but it might help with problems.

I still think that max range holds people back, even if their normal range is far far less.
For example I need a max range of over 400km, but 95% of my driving would happen in less than 20km.

It's almost worth simply buying a short range car and using rentals for long drives, and I'm just about there.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

james4beach said:


> With a car that I trust with my life every day, I want something that is fundamentally more solidly designed and does not require constant updates.
> 
> There is also the possibility of making mistakes with updates. Various software updates over the years have made operating systems unstable, for example. I don't want to take those kinds of chances when something I depend on to stay alive.
> 
> I want a machine which is rock solid by design, right off the shelf. What on earth do they have to keep updating, anyway? The product should work flawlessly once it's off the assembly line.


I do not necessarily view the updates as a fix for a flawed design. The point of the updates is to provide the end user the latest technology and improvements. Navigation maps need constant updating. Bluetooth connectivity, power range efficiencies, battery maintenance, cameras, etc. All this can start out as being flawless, but over time become obsolete or outdated. Having the ability to maintain all this with OTA updates is a huge advantage. 

This is one of the reasons that Tesla does not have new model designs like traditional car makers do. Their cars have the same technology regardless the year the car was manufactured.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

MrMatt said:


> It's almost worth simply buying a short range car and using rentals for long drives, and I'm just about there.


Better yet, a ride sharing program or pay per use would make even more sense - why buy? If Musk realizes his vision of driverless taxi fleet, I don't really see the need of owning a car in the future.


----------



## cainvest

Mortgage u/w said:


> Better yet, a ride sharing program or pay per use would make even more sense - why buy? If Musk realizes his vision of driverless taxi fleet, I don't really see the need of owning a car in the future.


Likely the main reason to buy is convenience and some people just enjoy driving.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

cainvest said:


> Likely the main reason to buy is convenience and some people just enjoy driving.


Isn't it more convenient to walk out your door and hop into a car that will take you exactly where you need to be? All you need is an app. No car to maintain, insure, park, upgrade.....

I enjoy driving too so not owning a car would be a huge adjustment for me. Theoretically, the plan makes sense - but it could take several generations to adapt.


----------



## MrMatt

Mortgage u/w said:


> Isn't it more convenient to walk out your door and hop into a car that will take you exactly where you need to be? All you need is an app. No car to maintain, insure, park, upgrade.....
> 
> I enjoy driving too so not owning a car would be a huge adjustment for me. Theoretically, the plan makes sense - but it could take several generations to adapt.


I actually think this is where the conventional automakers have a leg up.
They can make more vehicles and make them cheaper.

I've never selected my Taxi based on the brand of vehicle.


----------



## cainvest

Mortgage u/w said:


> Isn't it more convenient to walk out your door and hop into a car that will take you exactly where you need to be? All you need is an app. No car to maintain, insure, park, upgrade.....


Not if you have to wait 15-30 minutes for the car to get there. 

Last night was a good example, called up a friend to go fishing 40km away which also included some mild "off-roading". No way a driverless taxi would have worked there.

Also depends on the cost, you're really just paying for someone to buy and maintain the vehicle plus the profit the company wants to make as well.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

cainvest said:


> Not if you have to wait 15-30 minutes for the car to get there.
> 
> Last night was a good example, called up a friend to go fishing 40km away which also included some mild "off-roading". No way a driverless taxi would have worked there.
> 
> Also depends on the cost, you're really just paying for someone to buy and maintain the vehicle plus the profit the company wants to make as well.


Sure, there are inefficiencies in everything but it doesn't make it a bad idea. Ever happen to go start your car in a hurry to find the battery drained? 

As cities become more densely populated, garages and parking spots become harder to come by. Traffic keeps increasing. I see many neighborhoods already experiencing this. 

I've always said that the government needs to lead by example. Why can't the police force use EV? City workers? Buses? Ambulance? Companies with fleet vehicles? Once this catches-on, then maybe, society will accept this and have a different view on car ownership.


----------



## MrMatt

Mortgage u/w said:


> Sure, there are inefficiencies in everything but it doesn't make it a bad idea. Ever happen to go start your car in a hurry to find the battery drained?
> 
> As cities become more densely populated, garages and parking spots become harder to come by. Traffic keeps increasing. I see many neighborhoods already experiencing this.
> 
> I've always said that the government needs to lead by example. Why can't the police force use EV? City workers? Buses? Ambulance? Companies with fleet vehicles? Once this catches-on, then maybe, society will accept this and have a different view on car ownership.


I own stock in NFI, I think electric buses make a lot of sense.
1. People don't like inhaling diesel exhaust.
2. They travel short distances before they can hit a depot, they have lots of start/stop/idle. This is an ideal case for EV with battery swap.
Emergency vehicles should be good for EV, but any range anxiety or extended deployment is concerning, I think Hybrids make more sense here.

Garbage and other service trucks, again, short routes, lots of start stop, defined depot. Ideal use case for EV.

Ford has a line of Electric Transit vans for delivery. I'm sure the others are working here.


----------



## cainvest

Mortgage u/w said:


> Sure, there are inefficiencies in everything but it doesn't make it a bad idea.


Inefficiencies will exist but when you're trying to displace one technology with another (EV instead of ICE) it will be much more difficult with negatives attached either for ownership or use of robo-drivers.


----------



## Retired Peasant

Mortgage u/w said:


> Better yet, a ride sharing program or pay per use would make even more sense - why buy?


Such services are not available everywhere.


----------



## andrewf

Ponderling said:


> The price per kwh is only part of the electric bill. I add in the distribution levy, regulatory levy, account fee share etc. plus hst to make cost comparable to the all in cost of buying retail gasoline.


It doesn't really make sense to add fixed costs to your variable charging costs. Unless you would cancel your grid service if you didn't have an electric car.

The reality of electric car charging is you are mostly charging at home, mostly off-peak. You should include the (off-peak) tariff and the variable component of distribution costs. My utility charges for distribution on a fixed + variable basis.

That's just proper accounting!


----------



## Ponderling

andrewf said:


> It doesn't really make sense to add fixed costs to your variable charging costs. Unless you would cancel your grid service if you didn't have an electric car.
> 
> The reality of electric car charging is you are mostly charging at home, mostly off-peak. You should include the (off-peak) tariff and the variable component of distribution costs. My utility charges for distribution on a fixed + variable basis.
> 
> That's just proper accounting!


Say I have a consumption bill of $200 a month. That is energy plus distribution, then add on about $6 regulatory, then about $25 hst, then the bogus rebate of about $40 we get in ontario to sweeten us for higher power rates coming in the future.

Of consumption a quarter is distribution, billed on a kwh basis irrespective of what the energy price the power is. Distribution is a sliding scale, and the rate goes down the more you use, which is sort fair since it is meant to pay for fixed utility costs. 

On energy 75% of total kwh is off peak, and is when I charge my car, so I assign 75% of the $50 in distribution to the off peak per kwh price. It turns out in my sample that off peak cost 0.085 per kwh, and I used almost exactly 1000kwh. So I add $37.5 per 1000, or 0.037 to my 0.085 to set my car charging off peak per kwh so its $0.122 

I treat reg and hst cancelled by the rebate so $0.122 is my charging effective cost

Then I know that it eats 18kwh to charge a flat 14.4kwh battery.
In winter the battery heater eats 6kwh if left plugged in overnight even if the car was nearly full when you got home.
I have not calculated summer standby load, but I have heard the rad fan running high near balancing phase, and on low at other times when fully charged.

I have a hot tub that mostly heats off peak, and a shed that heats in winter to about 10C entirely off peak. Plus all laindry and dish washer and in winter all dryer loads run off peak. That and all time loads like furnace and fridge and freezer builds the off peak load too.


----------



## andrewf

n/a


----------



## pwm

I just read the July/August issue of Car & Driver. It's all about EVs with the Mustang Mach-E getting the "EV of the Year" award. Funny what they said in the summary of it:

" At long last, an automaker has given us an EV that competes head to head with Tesla on design, performance, price, and range, and it neither looks nor feels like it was built in a tent".


----------



## cainvest

Check out "Munro Live" on youtube for a good teardown of the Mach-e.


----------



## leoc2

I have pre-order deposit on a Hyundai Ioniq 5 coming winter 2022. The clunker has to make it another half year.





Pre-order the all-new IONIQ 5


Be one of the first to experience the all-new 2022 Hyundai IONIQ 5. Reserve yours by pre-ordering now.



www.hyundaicanada.com




.


----------



## Ponderling

I was driving my 2017 Volt LT ( at 90k in it now) plug in hybrid on the highway last week and got rear ended in a multi vehicle accident. I was at the front and so a pretty big bang to the passenger side beside the rear bumper frame area, so crumpled a bunch of the unibody.

I was expecting a write off, but insurance co today says car is worth quite a bit so it is worth it for them to fix it for me.rather than pay me out.


----------



## spiritwalker2222

leoc2 said:


> I have pre-order deposit on a Hyundai Ioniq 5 coming winter 2022. The clunker has to make it another half year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pre-order the all-new IONIQ 5
> 
> 
> Be one of the first to experience the all-new 2022 Hyundai IONIQ 5. Reserve yours by pre-ordering now.
> 
> 
> 
> www.hyundaicanada.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


Did they give you a ballpark figure for how much it should cost?


----------



## spiritwalker2222

Ponderling said:


> I was driving my 2017 Volt LT ( at 90k in it now) plug in hybrid on the highway last week and got rear ended in a multi vehicle accident. I was at the front and so a pretty big bang to the passenger side beside the rear bumper frame area, so crumpled a bunch of the unibody.
> 
> I was expecting a write off, but insurance co today says car is worth quite a bit so it is worth it for them to fix it for me.rather than pay me out.


I hope you are OK.
It's unfortunate that it's not written off, as the resale will take a significant hit due to the accident claim.


----------



## leoc2

spiritwalker2222 said:


> Did they give you a ballpark figure for how much it should cost?


No they did not ... Fingers crossed for it to be less than Tesla Model Y and to qualify for $5000 Fed rebate.


----------



## Eclectic21

Mortgage u/w said:


> Sure, there are inefficiencies in everything but it doesn't make it a bad idea. Ever happen to go start your car in a hurry to find the battery drained?


Sure ... maybe three times in over thirty years of driving. With the newer cars automatically turning off stuff that is forgotten, I'd expect that number to drop.

I suspect maintenance, parking, congestion are bigger items than a drained battery. 



Mortgage u/w said:


> ... I've always said that the government needs to lead by example. Why can't the police force use EV? City workers? Buses? Ambulance? Companies with fleet vehicles? Once this catches-on, then maybe, society will accept this and have a different view on car ownership.


Maybe ... but then again, where does this fit with the CNG buses already on the road?

Cheers


----------



## like_to_retire

leoc2 said:


> No they did not ... Fingers crossed for it to be less than Tesla Model Y and to qualify for $5000 Fed rebate.


Have you started figuring out where you will install your charger and the costs involved?

ltr


----------



## Ponderling

spiritwalker2222 said:


> I hope you are OK.
> It's unfortunate that it's not written off, as the resale will take a significant hit due to the accident claim.


I am fine- heard the first vehicle hit, glanced and saw it coming at me in mirror. Braced left foot against foot rest and pushed head firmly against head rest, so no whiplash on other bang. 
I am not worried about resale. The last drive for my last 4 cars was straight to scrap when car is on its last legs, usually more than 14 years since new.


----------



## bgc_fan

leoc2 said:


> No they did not ... Fingers crossed for it to be less than Tesla Model Y and to qualify for $5000 Fed rebate.


More than likely they'll target it for sub-$45k base model to be eligible for the incentive. Interestingly, I didn't realize that if you pick options up to $55k, you still get the incentive.

I think that's where Tesla was playing games with a "base" sub-$45k model that you can't actually buy.


----------



## leoc2

like_to_retire said:


> Have you started figuring out where you will install your charger and the costs involved?
> 
> ltr


Had our current home built in 2017 and had a 50 AMP 240V plug put into the garage back then for this very reason.


----------



## AltaRed

Is a 50 amp circuit what is required? A relative plugs his Tesla into our 30 amp 220V circuit in the garage. 

P..S. I know nothing about chargers.


----------



## spiritwalker2222

AltaRed said:


> Is a 50 amp circuit what is required? A relative plugs his Tesla into our 30 amp 220V circuit in the garage.
> 
> P..S. I know nothing about chargers.


50 amps isn't required. But it'll charge 66% faster than a 30 amp circuit.


----------



## spiritwalker2222

bgc_fan said:


> More than likely they'll target it for sub-$45k base model to be eligible for the incentive. Interestingly, I didn't realize that if you pick options up to $55k, you still get the incentive.
> 
> I think that's where Tesla was playing games with a "base" sub-$45k model that you can't actually buy.


Kia did that with their Niro EV as well. You can purchase the base model for 45K, but it doesn't have some items that the 17k base model forte has. The 55k model Niro EV is the one meant for people to buy.


----------



## agent99

Eclectic21 said:


> Maybe ... but then again, where does this fit with the CNG buses already on the road?
> 
> Cheers


Not sure what relationship there could be between CNG and EV. CNG is just another fossil fuel. A bit cleaner burning than diesel so lower particulate emissions but higher overall carbon emissions. Main reason to use CNG, might be that we have a surplus!



> Total wells-to-wheels GHG emissions (g CO2-e/mi) are generally slightly higher from CNG buses than from diesel buses, due primarily to the “upstream” impact of methane emissions from natural gas production and processing. The increase in total annual GHG emissions from operating new CNG buses instead of new diesel buses could be as high as 13.3 tons CO2-e per bus


Governments and municipalities ARE moving to Electric public transportation. Our city will before long. Kingston receives over $500K in federal funding for new electric buses - Kingston | Globalnews.ca

This really is nothing new for larger cities. Electric powered subways, trolley buses, trams, streetcars have been around forever. Battery operated buses, eliminate the need to stay on electrified routes and are a reasonable additional way of expanding electric public transportation.

In the US, USPS is planning on replacing mail delivery vehicles with EVs. This makes a lot of sense for mail and other frequent stop/start delivery vehicles. Might work for garbage pickup and blue box trucks. In Britain, milk has been and probably still is delivered by electric "floats" (trucks).
Electric Milk Trucks Still Working in Jolly Old England. Our milk is not delivered!


----------



## bgc_fan

spiritwalker2222 said:


> Kia did that with their Niro EV as well. You can purchase the base model for 45K, but it doesn't have some items that the 17k base model forte has. The 55k model Niro EV is the one meant for people to buy.


I think there's a significant difference between what's considered a base model. I don't know the particulars about Kia, but for the Tesla 3, it was pretty blatant. The real base model is $49k or so. But they "sell" a $44,999 model in Canada that has a locked 150 km range. You can't actually buy it as it isn't on their website, although you can probably call them to try to get it. However, given that the selling point of Tesla is their range over their competitors, few are actually going to buy it if they knew about it.


----------



## martik777

AltaRed said:


> Is a 50 amp circuit what is required? A relative plugs his Tesla into our 30 amp 220V circuit in the garage.
> 
> P..S. I know nothing about chargers.


You could even charge the Tesla or any other EV with a regular 120V plug. An overnight charge will get you about 100kms. I didn't bother with L2 (240V charging) for the 1st year of ownership.
120V (L1) charging is a little less efficient than L2 charging. L2 also allows you to remotely precondition (defrost and warmup or A/C) without draining your battery


----------



## AltaRed

Funny thing about 10 days ago in our 45C heat wave. My relative's Tesla Model S sitting out front in the sun had its fans cycling on and off throughout the day despite not going anywhere at all. He'd plug it in to our 30 amp (L2?) circuit overnight to keep it fully charged up.

Anecdotes: He had to obviously stop between the Okanagan and Vancouver to recharge (I don't need an intermediate fill up). Another relative needed to recharge his Tesla once between Edmonton and Lethbridge last week (no ICE car needs to do that). Until range is equivalent, I have no interest in making stops that I don't want to have.


----------



## cainvest

AltaRed said:


> Anecdotes: He had to obviously stop between the Okanagan and Vancouver to recharge (I don't need an intermediate fill up). Another relative needed to recharge his Tesla once between Edmonton and Lethbridge last week (no ICE car needs to do that). Until range is equivalent, I have no interest in making stops that I don't want to have.


This is why so many are not interested in pure EV, myself included. However, PHEV is really useful to almost everyone and I'm surprised they are not more models out there. With a PHEV I can plug it into a regular 110 outlet overnight and likely drive it around the city the next day with no emissions.

Add: It is surprising given the pros/cons of PHEV that they are not pushed more (incentives) by those that want less emissions.

Pros:

Likely 90% could drive to and from work each day with zero emissions
Cuts polution where it's needed the most, rush hour traffic in cities
No need for special charging stations on the road or at home
Much smaller batteries needed, just enough for a typical daily commute
Won't stress electrical grids (big problem in some areas)

Cons:

Slight increase in purchase price
Slightly more complex drive system


----------



## AltaRed

Those two negatives are huge in my mind, not small at all. 

Trivializing it (use of slight is offensive) won't convince very many folk.


----------



## like_to_retire

AltaRed said:


> Those two negatives are huge in my mind, not small at all.
> 
> Trivializing it (use of slight is offensive) won't convince very many folk.


No kidding - there's two cars in one, so you get the problems of both types of vehicle. They're way to complicated. I'm surprised anyone buys them. Terrible idea in my opinion. When they solve the battery conundrum with EV's, then everyone will switch to electric.

ltr


----------



## cainvest

AltaRed said:


> Those two negatives are huge in my mind, not small at all.
> 
> Trivializing it (use of slight is offensive) won't convince very many folk.


They may be huge negatives to you, not others that I've talked to about it but we all have to make up our own minds on it. 

A guess "slight" also depends on where you live and the rebates available. If it ends up being 2-3k more the average driver could make that back in gas costs in 3-4 years no?


----------



## pwm

In the July/August Car & Driver they did a 1000 mile run with the various cars in the test group to see how convenient it was to go cross country with an EV. This was in the Eastern US which is heavily populated. The results were not encouraging. The drivers were asked what they would do to make the cross country trip better and they all answered "Use a gas car next time". So it appears EV is OK for daily commute, but is still not there for cross country.


----------



## cainvest

like_to_retire said:


> No kidding - there's two cars in one, so you get the problems of both types of vehicle. They're way to complicated. I'm surprised anyone buys them. Terrible idea in my opinion. When they solve the battery conundrum with EV's, then everyone will switch to electric.
> 
> ltr


After looking at the complexity of some of the pure EVs out there I'm not so sure how much worse it is. But yes, you would end up paying one way or another for the benefits of both systems. Also, will they solve the battery problems before everyone is pushed into buying an EV ... who knows.


----------



## Spudd

I love my PHEV for the reasons listed above. Yes, it cost more, but I "fill it up" at a free charging station so it costs nothing in fuel to drive around town. When I go out of town, I am not restrained by range. It's about 2 years old now and no problems as of yet. It's a Toyota so I expect it to remain reliable, but we'll see, of course.


----------



## cainvest

Which Toyota did you get?


----------



## bgc_fan

pwm said:


> In the July/August Car & Driver they did a 1000 mile run with the various cars in the test group to see how convenient it was to go cross country with an EV. This was in the Eastern US which is heavily populated. The results were not encouraging. The drivers were asked what they would do to make the cross country trip better and they all answered "Use a gas car next time". So it appears EV is OK for daily commute, but is still not there for cross country.


I don't disagree with that. However, the follow-up question is how often does one travel cross country? I suspect for most people they use their cars for short-range daily commutes where range isn't a big deal. Of course, there is always the option to rent a car which people sometimes do when they want to travel long distances like that.


----------



## Spudd

cainvest said:


> Which Toyota did you get?


Prius Prime.


----------



## agent99

AltaRed said:


> Those two negatives are huge in my mind, not small at all.
> 
> Trivializing it (use of slight is offensive) won't convince very many folk.


Offensive?? Give us a break. This is supposed to be a friendly discussion with many views and opinions.


----------



## martik777

As a testament to reliability of PHEV's, there is a 2012 Volt (PHEV) with 763,000kms of which 266,000kms were in EV mode and I know of several Prius's with over 900,000kms.

People are lining up and paying well over MSRP for the RAV4 prime.

The environmental impact potential of PHEV's is much greater than EV's because they can build ~5 PHEV's with the same battery resources as 1 EV and that PHEV could be operating in EV mode 99% of the time. I use my ICE maybe 3-4 times/year. The last time filled the gas tank was Feb 2020. I doubt I have more than 2000miles on the ICE in 3.5 years

With rebates the Volt cost me less than a new Camry and I've saved ~$10,000 in gas over 3.5 years

It's too bad GM killed the Volt or did not migrate the Voltec technology to an SUV like the Rav4 prime


----------



## AltaRed

agent99 said:


> Offensive?? Give us a break. This is supposed to be a friendly discussion with many views and opinions.


I purposely used that word to get reactions.... and discussion... and I succeeded. I guess I should have put parentheses around it. I will endeavor to be more sensitive going forward.

Added: For a one vehicle family that needs both range along with mostly short haul, I do see the PHEV as a reasonable compromise. Not sure PHEVs will be much more than an intermediate (bridging) phase though. I doubt they will be selling many, if any, of them by 2030.


----------



## cainvest

AltaRed said:


> Not sure PHEVs will be much more than an intermediate (bridging) phase though. I doubt they will be selling many, if any, of them by 2030.


Hard to say what will happen ... 2034 might be the best year for ICE sales if they're going to stop selling them in 2035. Then again it's not like the government can't change it's mind before then.


----------



## AltaRed

It's a challenge for the auto manufacturers because they can't afford to keep $billions tied up on an assembly plant and much of its ICE supply chain on a 'what if' proposition on whether they can sell half a million units of a product line that may, or may not, have a future the following year. IOW, nothing can turn on a dime in that manufacturing operation.


----------



## cainvest

Of course they'll have to adapt to the demand & laws but most of that will be tied to the neighbors down south and who is in power down there. The US could do a turn around on banning ICE where most of their units are sold.


----------



## bgc_fan

cainvest said:


> Hard to say what will happen ... 2034 might be the best year for ICE sales if they're going to stop selling them in 2035. Then again it's not like the government can't change it's mind before then.


Considering that GM plans on being all-electric by 2035, Volvo by 2030, and Audi by 2033, there's no real need for the government to impose a deadline, as more manufacturers are going to go that route. UK is going with 2030, and EU with 2035, so Canada's not alone, although it's the US that would be the biggest factor. California is banning in 2035 as well... which has the population size of Canada, so that's not insignificant as well.

A comprehensive list of countries: Gasoline Phaseouts Around The World — Coltura - moving beyond gasoline


----------



## cainvest

bgc_fan said:


> Considering that GM plans on being all-electric by 2035, Volvo by 2030, and Audi by 2033, there's no real need for the government to impose a deadline, as more manufacturers are going to go that route.


Didn't all (most?) auto makers bring in those plans because of government policies? I'm sure they'd be just as happy to keep on making ICE vehicles if climate change wasn't a big issue.

I agree, it will most likely go forward but things can change. Hopefully a new battery tech will come about or maybe another technology will be found that has less limitations and is easier on resources.


----------



## AltaRed

cainvest said:


> Didn't all (most?) auto makers bring in those plans because of government policies? I'm sure they'd be just as happy to keep on making ICE vehicles if climate change wasn't a big issue.


Indeed! Automaker plans line up with what government is dictating in the countries which have a gov't mandate. It remains to be seen whether ICEs will continue to be made elsewhere but they will likely have too in some fashion where electrical supply and transmission is wanting.


----------



## bgc_fan

cainvest said:


> Didn't all (most?) auto makers bring in those plans because of government policies? I'm sure they'd be just as happy to keep on making ICE vehicles if climate change wasn't a big issue.
> 
> I agree, it will most likely go forward but things can change. Hopefully a new battery tech will come about or maybe another technology will be found that has less limitations and is easier on resources.


I thought they announced them before the governments did, but I don't recall the timelines.

We'll see about battery technology. The only reason why Tesla was able to be successful at the start was because Li-ion technology was just starting to get mature. The previous EVs used Ni-metal which was significantly lower capacity.

Over the next 10 years, with more of a push towards EV, I'm sure we'll see developments in batteries. Of course, whether the research ends up becoming commercially viable is another question.









Developer Of Aluminum-Ion Battery Claims It Charges 60 Times Faster Than Lithium-Ion, Offering EV Range Breakthrough


The graphene aluminum-ion battery cells from the Brisbane-based Graphene Manufacturing Group (GMG) are claimed to charge up to 60 times faster than the best lithium-ion cells and hold more energy.




www.forbes.com












A new EV battery shows big promise | Greenbiz


Startup QuantumScape just revealed performance data about a next-generation electric vehicle battery that could leapfrog current lithium-ion batteries, though it won't be commercially available for several years.




www.greenbiz.com












Researchers design long-lasting, solid-state lithium battery


Harvard researchers have designed a stable, lithium-metal, solid-state battery that is far more efficient than lithium-ion batteries.




news.harvard.edu


----------



## agent99

Interesting that the Harvard researchers name is Li. 😀

Unless lithium can be and will be recycled, world resources could be depleted fairly quickly. One report estimated 50 yrs. Alternatives will be needed. For lithium and perhaps for the batteries themselves.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> Funny thing about 10 days ago in our 45C heat wave. My relative's Tesla Model S sitting out front in the sun had its fans cycling on and off throughout the day despite not going anywhere at all. He'd plug it in to our 30 amp (L2?) circuit overnight to keep it fully charged up.
> 
> Anecdotes: He had to obviously stop between the Okanagan and Vancouver to recharge (I don't need an intermediate fill up). Another relative needed to recharge his Tesla once between Edmonton and Lethbridge last week (no ICE car needs to do that). Until range is equivalent, I have no interest in making stops that I don't want to have.


Teslas have a cabin over-heat feature to keep the car below reasonable temperature (unlike most cars, which would let a baby/dog get cooked). You can turn it off if you are concerned about power usage.


----------



## AltaRed

Just what one needs with a Tesla parked out in a lot somewhere such as an airport for a week. Come back and find the battery dead, or almost dead. Should those gimmicks not default to OFF in the first place?


----------



## spiritwalker2222

cainvest said:


> They may be huge negatives to you, not others that I've talked to about it but we all have to make up our own minds on it.
> 
> A guess "slight" also depends on where you live and the rebates available. If it ends up being 2-3k more the average driver could make that back in gas costs in 3-4 years no?


I drive more than the average person. I save about $2,000 a year in gas with my PHEV. Once or twice a week I do a 250 km trip towing a bike and average 4.8 L/100km's on those trips (at highway speeds). I've had the car for 2 years and am averaging 2.3 L/100km's. Driving conditions plays a big role, like any car. I get better fuel economy in the winter as I'm not towing at all in the winter.

If you don't drive much don't get an electric car or PHEV. A hybrid might not even be worth it if your km's are low enough.


----------



## cainvest

agent99 said:


> Unless lithium can be and will be recycled, world resources could be depleted fairly quickly. One report estimated 50 yrs. Alternatives will be needed. For lithium and perhaps for the batteries themselves.


There is also the backlash on the ethical mining for batteries, mainly for cobalt IIRC.


----------



## cainvest

spiritwalker2222 said:


> If you don't drive much don't get an electric car or PHEV. A hybrid might not even be worth it if your km's are low enough.


Everyone needs to look at their specific needs for sure and those that do low mileage may not benefit on the gas saving. Twenty years ago I had to decide between getting a gas or diesel (a $2k option) engine. I choose the diesel and it paid off pretty quick and continues to do so today. I'll do the same analysis when a PHEV/EV comes into my sights.

On a side note, I know a few truck guys that really wish the Ford Maverick had a PHEV option. The hybrid would save them money but a PHEV version would save them even more.


----------



## andrewf

cainvest said:


> There is also the backlash on the ethical mining for batteries, mainly for cobalt IIRC.


Cobalt is also used in refining gasoline, so you can't win. Actually, there are chemistries that don't use any cobalt. Tesla use Lithium Iron Phosphate in China. It is not quite as energy dense as cobalt chemistries but has good durability.


----------



## agent99

AltaRed said:


> Just what one needs with a Tesla parked out in a lot somewhere such as an airport for a week. Come back and find the battery dead, or almost dead. Should those gimmicks not default to OFF in the first place?


The same can happen with modern ICE cars. We have to keep our seldom used 2019 Subaru on trickle charge. Otherwise battery will be dead next time we need to use it. Manufacturers install minimal batteries to reduce weight for lower mpg. 

Even our late 90s Mercedes with substantial battery could not be left parked at an airport for 3 weeks without risk of battery dropping below no-start voltage. Only safe solution was to disconnect battery, but then computer has to re-learn and adapt the car to driving habits and we have to reset radio codes etc. 

Battery drain is caused by on-board computer and other tech items that many cars have these days. This article covers these better than I can! :








Long-Term Parking Can Kill Your Battery. Here’s the Solution


Batteries can go completely dead if you leave your car parked for days. Here’s how to ensure it starts after extended downtime.




www.wsj.com


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> Cobalt is also used in refining gasoline, so you can't win.


I believe we've been over ths before. Refining gas uses a tiny fraction of cobalt compared to a single Tesla battery.


----------



## bgc_fan

@spiritwalker2222 Just a follow-up article about the Tesla 3 sub-$45k. Basically less than half of 1 percent who bought a model 3 bought this compliance model: Tesla's Cheap 94-Mile Model 3 Has Cost Canadian Taxpayers $115 Million



AltaRed said:


> Just what one needs with a Tesla parked out in a lot somewhere such as an airport for a week. Come back and find the battery dead, or almost dead. Should those gimmicks not default to OFF in the first place?


Apparently, even for a week with really bad heat/cold, it could consume 35 kWh, which isn't detrimental. But the expectation for a week is 2.45 kWh. How to reduce battery drain (aka vampire drain) when you leave your Tesla parked up (Phantom Drain)


----------



## agent99

agent99 said:


> The same can happen with modern ICE cars. (rest cut ,,)


One thought. Article I linked lists some actions an ICE owner can take to prevent battery from dying. But if it does (and presumably EV battery will also be drained by same or similar systems), how do we get car going again?

With ICE engine, we can get a jump start from another car, CAA/AAA, or if we have one, a jump start battery.

If the EV battery is dead for any reason, what does owner do? Does it get towed to nearest charging station? Then owner has to wait until there is enough charge to get home or to hotel?

Maybe answer is to just not park the EV for long periods. Take a taxi to the airport? bgc's last link provides some other options.

If we ever get an EV, it will be a town car. We will still keep an ICE car for long trips. Our time horizon for driving is less than 15yrs. May take longer than that before EVs are a practical answer for a single car household.


----------



## Eder

There should be a disconnect switch removing all current draws from batteries. Not sure if EV's have this. Storing an ICE vehicle for more than a few months ( or 2 weeks in -30 at the airport) its easy enough to spend a few seconds and remove the battery cable.


----------



## 307169

Eder said:


> There should be a disconnect switch removing all current draws from batteries. Not sure if EV's have this. Storing an ICE vehicle for more than a few months ( or 2 weeks in -30 at the airport) its easy enough to spend a few seconds and remove the battery cable.


I know Prius have them, although that is not an EV.


----------



## spiritwalker2222

Eder said:


> There should be a disconnect switch removing all current draws from batteries. Not sure if EV's have this. Storing an ICE vehicle for more than a few months ( or 2 weeks in -30 at the airport) its easy enough to spend a few seconds and remove the battery cable.


Doing so would not allow the battery management system to manage the battery temperatures and reducing it's life span. You're trying to save a few pennies at the expense of a $10,000 battery!


----------



## Eclectic21

agent99 said:


> The same can happen with modern ICE cars. We have to keep our seldom used 2019 Subaru on trickle charge. Otherwise battery will be dead next time we need to use it. Manufacturers install minimal batteries to reduce weight for lower mpg.
> 
> Even our late 90s Mercedes with substantial battery could not be left parked at an airport for 3 weeks without risk of battery dropping below no-start voltage ...
> 
> Battery drain is caused by on-board computer and other tech items that many cars have these days ...


Weird ... IIRC, my '86 Escort sat six weeks in airport parking with no issues because of the Sept 11th attack. When my friend visited, it sat for four weeks. Two to three weeks was more common. No issues starting it up when I returned.

A 2009 Fusion and a 2017 Santa Fe have shown no issues after two weeks.


Discovering a dead battery usually was from leaving the lights on or similar and found in my driveway.


Cheers


----------



## agent99

Eclectic21 said:


> Weird ... IIRC, my '86 Escort sat six weeks in airport parking with no issues because of the Sept 11th attack.


My 72 & 85 can be left all winter and will start right up in the Spring. But those cars are of a different era. Only current draw is from the clock. I disconnect battery anyway.

Don't count on the Sante Fe battery not going dead when parked without trickle charger. I have a friend with one! It will likely not be much different than an Outback of same era. Also this: Hyundai Santa Fe Sport Questions - battery keeps going dead but only at home. the dealership blames the k... - CarGurus.ca


----------



## Mukhang pera

So, if we all switch to electric vehicles, will this be our fate? What follows I borrowed from my brother-in-law who has some knowledge of these things, which I totally lack, so the scenario posited below might just be a joke. I don't know any better, so I could see it happening. I am sure some here can tell me why this can never happen.

Snow, Traffic Jams, and Electric Cars.

Can we show a little forethought and practicality? Please? Has anyone thought about it?

If all cars were electric ... and were caught up in a three hour traffic jam… dead batteries! Then what? Not to mention, that there is virtually no heating in an electric vehicle. And if you get stuck on the road all night, no battery, no heating !!!

You can try calling 911 to bring women and children to safety!

But they can not even come to help you since all roads are blocked !!!

And when the roads become unblocked no one can move!

How do you charge the thousands of cars from the traffic jam?

Same problem during summer vacation departures with miles of traffic jams.

This will make cars run out of "fuel" and cause never ending traffic jams.

But that, nobody talks about.


----------



## cainvest

Mukhang pera said:


> Can we show a little forethought and practicality? Please? Has anyone thought about it?


Maybe this will help?


----------



## Mukhang pera

^ Too long a video to hold my limited attention span. I'll take it that, in a nutshell, the message is that these vehicles cannot easily run out of power and and the frozen traffic jam scenario lies beyond the realm of possibility. Fair enuff. 

As I said, I know nothing of these vehicles and not to interested to know. Maybe some years in the future when we replace what we are driving now. Then I might endeavour to learn a bit about them. On that score, the conventional wisdom on CMF is never buy new (a rule I confess too having breached on occasion). Does that apply to electric vehicles as well?


----------



## cainvest

Mukhang pera said:


> I'll take it that, in a nutshell, the message is that these vehicles cannot easily run out of power and and the frozen traffic jam scenario lies beyond the realm of possibility. Fair enuff.


One universal feature they could use in the future is car to car charging. Just like giving someone a few liters of fuel to make it to a station.


----------



## agent99

Just thinking that it would only take a few cars running out of juice to cause an even bigger mess than the one pictures earlier. In the picture, all the cars have their lights on. Presumably EVs will have running lights like all cars do now. In stop start driving in super cold weather with lights and heat on, how long does a 1/4 charged battery last?


----------



## cainvest

agent99 said:


> In stop start driving in super cold weather with lights and heat on, how long does a 1/4 charged battery last?


A fair amount of time apparently. I believe most EVs are using LED lights which would consume much less power than regular bulbs. Heat (and likely A/C) would be the biggest non-driving drains on the battery.

There are a fair number of Tesla owners showing youtube videos of power consumption and driving range loss in the cold winter months.


----------



## spiritwalker2222

Mukhang pera said:


> If all cars were electric ... and were caught up in a three hour traffic jam… dead batteries! Then what? Not to mention, that there is virtually no heating in an electric vehicle. And if you get stuck on the road all night, no battery, no heating !!!


LOL, my PHEV is rated for 42 km's. If I'm in a traffic jam it's good for 100+ km's. The slower I go the better the mileage is, that's where EV's shine. Afraid you're going to run out of juice, don't crank the heat or A/C. I've driven 70 km's in the winter. 

In the summer I go to drive in theaters and run the A/C. It uses about 5-10 km's of range for a 2 hour movie.


----------



## bgc_fan

Whether or not Elon Musk is just blowing smoke, he's said that they plan on opening up their Supercharger network to other EVs by the end of the year. Probably charge more and you need an adapter, but something to help deal with range anxiety for those not buying a Tesla.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1417593502351826946


----------



## Covariance

bgc_fan said:


> Whether or not Elon Musk is just blowing smoke, he's said that they plan on opening up their Supercharger network to other EVs by the end of the year. Probably charge more and you need an adapter, but something to help deal with range anxiety for those not buying a Tesla.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1417593502351826946


Opening their charger network is a good competitive move. At the moment it is an asset. If others build networks and it become redundant then it becomes a liability.


----------



## MrMatt

Charging networks are nice, but they really don't make much sense as an investment, except to entice people to buy EVs.


----------



## bgc_fan

Covariance said:


> Opening their charger network is a good competitive move. At the moment it is an asset. If others build networks and it become redundant then it becomes a liability.


Yes, it justifies the investment they've made in the charger network. Of course, it's a bit of a tradeoff of a walled garden approach, where Tesla may see an increased revenue stream in their charger network with some decrease in car sales revenue.


----------



## MrMatt

bgc_fan said:


> Yes, it justifies the investment they've made in the charger network. Of course, it's a bit of a tradeoff of a walled garden approach, where Tesla may see an increased revenue stream in their charger network with some decrease in car sales revenue.


I don't think there is much money to be made in a standard charging network.
It's like gas stations, where competition is intense.

Except for 2 things
1. Add ons - Visits are longer, so that Starbucks/Lounge could be profitable. I expect Malls might want a lot of charging stations.
2. Cost for electricity, residential electricity, particularly at of hours is really cheap. I saw an article where someone noted that it was more expensive to charge the EV at a paid station than his gas guzzling Pickup. (based on cost per mile).

I think charging stations make sense as loss leaders for other services (stores) or to sell EVs.


----------



## bgc_fan

MrMatt said:


> I don't think there is much money to be made in a standard charging network.
> It's like gas stations, where competition is intense.
> 
> Except for 2 things
> 1. Add ons - Visits are longer, so that Starbucks/Lounge could be profitable. I expect Malls might want a lot of charging stations.
> 2. Cost for electricity, residential electricity, particularly at of hours is really cheap. I saw an article where someone noted that it was more expensive to charge the EV at a paid station than his gas guzzling Pickup. (based on cost per mile).
> 
> I think charging stations make sense as loss leaders for other services (stores) or to sell EVs.


Those points are fine, and the intent has always been to pair service stops including restaurant facilities/convenience stores with supercharger hubs. No different than the Onroute hubs if you're in Ontario.

As for cost of electricity, Tesla supercharger assumes $0.26/kWh and only Nunavut and Northwest Territories have higher rates. Assuming that there's a surcharge for non-Tesla cars, Tesla can add a significant revenue stream. How much is hard to say.


----------



## 307169

I can definitely see charging network from Tesla, which is very extensive, is a valuable asset. If I am Mr. Musk, I will spin it off into an REIT/business trust if I need more money for R&D.

I can see malls paying Tesla to build charging network for reason Mr.Matt mention, this is another revenue stream.


----------



## andrewf

cainvest said:


> I believe we've been over ths before. Refining gas uses a tiny fraction of cobalt compared to a single Tesla battery.


How can that be the case when some Tesla batteries contain no cobalt at all?

And how can it be a 'tiny fraction' you need more cobalt for every liter so its a function of usage.


----------



## andrewf

bgc_fan said:


> @spiritwalker2222 Just a follow-up article about the Tesla 3 sub-$45k. Basically less than half of 1 percent who bought a model 3 bought this compliance model: Tesla's Cheap 94-Mile Model 3 Has Cost Canadian Taxpayers $115 Million
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, even for a week with really bad heat/cold, it could consume 35 kWh, which isn't detrimental. But the expectation for a week is 2.45 kWh. How to reduce battery drain (aka vampire drain) when you leave your Tesla parked up (Phantom Drain)


It was never meant to be purchased and Tesla actively discouraged people to buy them. It is not a compliance car, it is a model designed to make the actual product eligible for government incentives.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> I don't think there is much money to be made in a standard charging network.
> It's like gas stations, where competition is intense.
> 
> Except for 2 things
> 1. Add ons - Visits are longer, so that Starbucks/Lounge could be profitable. I expect Malls might want a lot of charging stations.
> 2. Cost for electricity, residential electricity, particularly at of hours is really cheap. I saw an article where someone noted that it was more expensive to charge the EV at a paid station than his gas guzzling Pickup. (based on cost per mile).
> 
> I think charging stations make sense as loss leaders for other services (stores) or to sell EVs.


I expect there will be a premium charge for non-Teslas, or the other OEMs will have to make a per-vehicle contribution to Tesla. Tesla's rates for charging are quite reasonable compared to most charging networks, and I don't think they'll open it up to non-Tesla EVs on the same terms.


----------



## bgc_fan

andrewf said:


> It was never meant to be purchased and Tesla actively discouraged people to buy them. It is not a compliance car, it is a model designed to make the actual product eligible for government incentives.


To my mind that is a compliance car. A car so that Tesla cars can get an incentive that otherwise is ineligible to get. As you said, it's not meant to be purchased, so why should Tesla be allowed to get the benefits of the incentive if it's not a "serious" car for buyers? 
Would you find it acceptable that a car manufacturer produces a base model at $55k, not eligible for incentives, but then builds a version with a 1 kWh battery pack that can be "sold" for $44.9k so that their base model is now eligible? That is exactly the issue. It's gaming the system. If there was another criteria, i.e. the sub-$45k base model has to demonstrate sales of a certain threshold (say 1000 units/yr), then I would find that to be an acceptable way to implement that particular incentive.


----------



## Covariance

andrewf said:


> I expect there will be a premium charge for non-Teslas, or the other OEMs will have to make a per-vehicle contribution to Tesla. Tesla's rates for charging are quite reasonable compared to most charging networks, and I don't think they'll open it up to non-Tesla EVs on the same terms.


A smart play would entail the user needing to use a Tesla app and establishing an account with them. Then they know who all the users are and gather data.


----------



## off.by.10

bgc_fan said:


> If there was another criteria, i.e. the sub-$45k base model has to demonstrate sales of a certain threshold (say 1000 units/yr), then I would find that to be an acceptable way to implement that particular incentive.


Or even simpler: progressively phase out the incentive based on the price of the model being bought.


----------



## bgc_fan

off.by.10 said:


> Or even simpler: progressively phase out the incentive based on the price of the model being bought.


I'm fine with that. It actually makes the most sense. I didn't realize that it was actually scaled in the fashion that it is. I get the idea was that the first time there was an incentive Tesla was the only game in town and priced at a luxury level, so the incentives were looked at subsidizing the rich people. Now that there are lower cost options available, it makes sense to cap them.


----------



## andrewf

bgc_fan said:


> To my mind that is a compliance car. A car so that Tesla cars can get an incentive that otherwise is ineligible to get. As you said, it's not meant to be purchased, so why should Tesla be allowed to get the benefits of the incentive if it's not a "serious" car for buyers?
> Would you find it acceptable that a car manufacturer produces a base model at $55k, not eligible for incentives, but then builds a version with a 1 kWh battery pack that can be "sold" for $44.9k so that their base model is now eligible? That is exactly the issue. It's gaming the system. If there was another criteria, i.e. the sub-$45k base model has to demonstrate sales of a certain threshold (say 1000 units/yr), then I would find that to be an acceptable way to implement that particular incentive.


I have no problem with Tesla gaming the system. The system was designed to be gamed. The framers of the policy were also obviously deliberately trying to exclude Tesla from eligibility for the credit, probably due to a lingering perception that Teslas are expensive luxury cars. I'm not sure why any car should be ineligible for the credit, considering the stated goal of the credit. EVs are more expensive up front and cheaper to operate. A $50k EV is more akin to a $30-35k gas car on a TCO basis.


----------



## bgc_fan

andrewf said:


> I have no problem with Tesla gaming the system. The system was designed to be gamed. The framers of the policy were also obviously deliberately trying to exclude Tesla from eligibility for the credit, probably due to a lingering perception that Teslas are expensive luxury cars. I'm not sure why any car should be ineligible for the credit, considering the stated goal of the credit. EVs are more expensive up front and cheaper to operate. A $50k EV is more akin to a $30-35k gas car on a TCO basis.


Teslas are viewed as luxury cars because of price point. Nothing more. If you recall, Ontario had an incentive didn't actually have this stipulation back in 2010, and the only EV game in town was primarily the Tesla S, a car over $100k. So, it was viewed as primarily as a benefit for the rich. Given that you can find many ICE models less than $20k, and even some EV models less than $40k, the cut off seems reasonable. From the government POV, it's not great to give money when an EV purchaser could by 2 or 3 cheap ICE vehicles instead of 1 EV: Top 11 Cheapest Cars in Canada in 2020.


----------



## andrewf

If they don't want people to game the system, they shouldn't have arbitrary cut-offs. I don't see a compelling reason to offer an incentive on a $40k car and nothing at all for a $50k car.


----------



## Eder

I think there should only be incentives for those vehicles that can show environmental savings savings including manufacture & disposal. A small Mazda ICE should come with a government incentive rather than a luxury EV car that isn't actually that green.


----------



## MrBlackhill

Mercedes just teased its Vision EQXX with a promised range of 1,000 km.

Anyways, my next car will be a CUV. Maybe a Hyundai Kona EV. I like it.

But my car is currently only 7 years old. I may keep it until 2030.


----------



## agent99

I may have to buy an EV. 

Provided, as eyesight fails and other issues result in driving license being medically suspended, I will still be allowed to get around in a self driving EV! 

Will we need driving licenses to own and travel in a self driving car (EV)??


----------



## cainvest

agent99 said:


> Will we need driving licenses to own and travel in a self driving car (EV)??


Once the sell level 5 autonomous cars you'll be good to go without a license.


----------



## Spudd

agent99 said:


> I may have to buy an EV.
> 
> Provided, as eyesight fails and other issues result in driving license being medically suspended, I will still be allowed to get around in a self driving EV!
> 
> Will we need driving licenses to own and travel in a self driving car (EV)??


I am not sure why everyone seems to conflate self-driving with EV's, but I don't think that a car needs to be an EV to be self-driving. 

Eventually, once they have fully autonomous cars, one would assume that no license would be needed to ride in one. But I think that day is at least 10 years from now, especially in Canada with our weather.


----------



## cainvest

Spudd said:


> I am not sure why everyone seems to conflate self-driving with EV's, but I don't think that a car needs to be an EV to be self-driving.
> 
> Eventually, once they have fully autonomous cars, one would assume that no license would be needed to ride in one. But I think that day is at least 10 years from now, especially in Canada with our weather.


I think you partially answered yourself, as in, it'll be 10 years for level 5 autonomous so ICE sales "should be" decreasing by then. 

Of course the same tech could be applied to an ICE vehicle. I would think the trucking industry would really benefit from self-driving and they'll likely still be diesel powered for long haul runs.


----------



## bgc_fan

andrewf said:


> If they don't want people to game the system, they shouldn't have arbitrary cut-offs. I don't see a compelling reason to offer an incentive on a $40k car and nothing at all for a $50k car.


To ensure that people have a choice of an "affordable" EV? The fact that other companies are able to provide/build cars specifically to meet the sub-$45k criteria means that it is doing what it is supposed to.


----------



## andrewf

MrBlackhill said:


> Mercedes just teased its Vision EQXX with a promised range of 1,000 km.
> 
> Anyways, my next car will be a CUV. Maybe a Hyundai Kona EV. I like it.
> 
> But my car is currently only 7 years old. I may keep it until 2030.


Mercedes has been a total trainwreck when it comes to EVs. Hopefully they start to execute better and can bring EVs that people actually want to buy to market.


----------



## andrewf

Spudd said:


> I am not sure why everyone seems to conflate self-driving with EV's, but I don't think that a car needs to be an EV to be self-driving.
> 
> Eventually, once they have fully autonomous cars, one would assume that no license would be needed to ride in one. But I think that day is at least 10 years from now, especially in Canada with our weather.


This is true. Google's Waymo division operates a self-driving taxi service using Chrysler Pacifica ICE powered minivans in the Phoenix area. However, the combination of EVs + AVs is very powerful, because the main stumbling block for EVs, their higher upfront cost, is completely irrelevant when put to taxi-like levels of utilization. Payback in months due to fuel savings.

Personally, I doubt we will see personally owned AVs that don't require the owner to have a drivers license at all any time soon. They will be owned and operated by fleet management companies and you will hire the services on a fee for service or subscription basis. Mainly because I expect a more or less fully self-driving car to require occasional interventions that can be handled with teleoperation for robotaxi, or the human passenger (which in theory would require a drivers license).


----------



## AltaRed

This Nissan Leaf price drop should excite some buyers.


----------



## ian

The battery technology and the respective ranges will have to improve substantially before we even consider an EV. I might be interested when I can drive from Calgary to Vancouver without stopping and still have some K left in the battery.


----------



## AltaRed

ian said:


> The battery technology and the respective ranges will have to improve substantially before we even consider an EV. I might be interested when I can drive from Calgary to Vancouver without stopping and still have some K left in the battery.


No regular ICE other than maybe a dual tank pickup or maybe a diesel Golf or simllar, can make that trip on one tank of gas either. However, for me, it would be Kelowna to Calgary (625 km or so + 100km to spare), but for an urban commuter vehicle, the Leaf serves the purpose.


----------



## martik777

PHEV's like the Rav4 prime eliminate all range issues. We've paid for 1/2 of our EV in 3 years with the gas savings, battery still gets the same range as new. Pre-conditioning via phone or remote and getting into a toasty defrosted car is itself, worth the cost


----------



## AltaRed

We've had this discussion before.....probably in this thread alone multiple times.


----------



## cainvest

AltaRed said:


> No regular ICE other than maybe a dual tank pickup or maybe a diesel Golf or simllar, can make that trip on one tank of gas either.


Yup, the older diesel golf can do Calgary to Van. I can almost do east side of Calgary to Winnipeg but I'd be running on fumes.


----------



## MrMatt

martik777 said:


> PHEV's like the Rav4 prime eliminate all range issues. We've paid for 1/2 of our EV in 3 years with the gas savings, battery still gets the same range as new. Pre-conditioning via phone or remote and getting into a toasty defrosted car is itself, worth the cost


I pay about $30/month in gas... so there is no payback.


----------



## AltaRed

Driving habits drive the economics. I agree the economics are very hard to obtain for low mileage types.


----------



## martik777

MrMatt said:


> I pay about $30/month in gas... so there is no payback.


lol

That was 1/3 of a tank in my old Acura  barely enough to drive downtown Vancouver and back from the burbs.


----------



## martik777

AltaRed said:


> We've had this discussion before.....probably in this thread alone multiple times.


Just read this on my Quora feed - couldn't resist:

"An elderly couple are having a hard time remembering things. So they go to the doctor who checks them out but the doc really can’t find anything wrong so he suggests they start writing everything down. They say okay they’ll try it and they get home and the man sits down in the easy chair and mentions he’d like a bowl of ice cream. “I’ll get it for you, dear,” his wife says. “You want to write it down?” he asks? “No, it’s just ice cream. I’ll remember.” “Well okay then,” he says, “with some chocolate syrup.” “Got it: ice cream with chocolate syrup!” “Maybe you should write it down.” “No I got it. Ice cream with chocolate syrup.” “Well I want a cherry on top, too.” “Okay!” “Sure you don’t want to write it down?” “No, I got it: ice cream with chocolate syrup with a cherry on top!” Fifteen minutes later she comes back from the kitchen and hands him a plate of bacon and eggs. He looks up questioningly and stammers, ... “Wh -- wha -- where’s my toast!?”


----------



## AltaRed

😁


----------



## NewbieInvestor88

Ford F150 Lightning


----------



## martik777

First Rivan came off the line yesterday, customer deliveries this month


----------



## ian

AltaRed said:


> Driving habits drive the economics. I agree the economics are very hard to obtain for low mileage types.


That is us. We were looking at upgrading one vehicle a few months ago. Took a look at our KMs for the past two years and decided a new vehicle made zero sense when we are quite happy with what we have. And both are trouble free.


----------



## MrMatt

martik777 said:


> lol
> 
> That was 1/3 of a tank in my old Acura  barely enough to drive downtown Vancouver and back from the burbs.


My golf only has a 50L tank.


----------



## Eder

Well I bought a Wrangler Rubicon with eTorque...its a sorta hybrid

On a lighter note the elite saving the planet by flying to Scotland are at least using Teslas around town...lol



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1448206273951027203


----------



## bgc_fan

Eder said:


> Well I bought a Wrangler Rubicon with eTorque...its a sorta hybrid
> 
> On a lighter note the elite saving the planet by flying to Scotland are at least using Teslas around town...lol
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1448206273951027203


You really should stop taking twitter as fact.








Fact Check-The Scottish Government did not buy 20 Tesla cars ahead of COP26


A rumour that the Scottish Government has bought 20 Tesla electric cars at a cost of £2m to transport COP26 delegates is false, Britain’s Cabinet Office has told Reuters.




www.reuters.com





_Speculation over transport for delegates has spread on social media, with various posts suggesting that the government had paid £100,000 per car in order to transport dignitaries to the summit in Glasgow.

However, the Cabinet Office spokesperson told Reuters by email that this was not correct.

“COP26 has not purchased or will be using any Tesla’s for COP26 travel arrangements,” the spokesperson said._

_Jaguar Land Rover __is instead providing around 240 electric vehicles for the summit, but these are not being purchased by the government._

As for the generators.

_The spokesperson said, “where generators are required for charging EVs, these will run on HVO (hydrogenated vegetable oil) recycled cooking oil, derived from waste products.”_


----------



## AltaRed

Of course, recycled cooking oil using fossil fuels no doubt to process it from waste products. At some level, fossil fuel is in that chain.


----------



## agent99

Nah - I doubt there is much if any need for fossil fuels. 

DIY recycling of used cooking oil uses minimal electrical energy. Just run a pump or two and a heating element. No reason for electricity to be fossil fuel based. Almost none of ours in Ontario is. I have a couple of friends who run their old Mercedes diesels on home brewed recycled vegetable oil. 

In the UK they have 40%+ renewable electricity. They even have dedicated distribution lines in some areas for renewable electricity. They already have commercial vegetable oil recycling plants that use minimal external energy: https://www.olleco.co.uk/sustainability/used-cooking-oil-recycling. 

They do have a huge oil supply with all those Fish & Chip shops


----------



## Eder

The hypocrisy makes the whole shindig a joke, but we're not supposed to laugh?
The capper is that if true the gen sets running on vegetable oil produce higher amounts of CO2 than running on diesel.


----------



## AltaRed

Maybe not quite like this, but? I am all for 'smart' fossil fuel demand reduction but I don't have patience for stupid stuff.


----------



## bgc_fan

AltaRed said:


> Maybe not quite like this, but? I am all for 'smart' fossil fuel demand reduction but I don't have patience for stupid stuff.


Aside from the van being diesel, it's a lithium battery. Probably better if they use an EV to bring it. But not much different than road side assistance delivering gas.









No, this is not a petrol generator charging an electric car


A photo shared at least 75,000 times on Facebook allegedly shows a diesel van towing a petrol generator in order to charge an electric car. This is misleading; while the Austrian roadside assistance association that owns the mobile charging station in the photo confirmed to AFP it relies mostly...




factcheck.afp.com


----------



## AltaRed

Roadside assistance should know better. Being half-pregnant is not a credible option when the motive should be to promote EVs. The point is the inconsistencies that exist.

BC Hydro is on a 'full court' press to convert homeowners in our area from gas heating to heat pump and yet they cannot reliably supply electricity to us. Another example of stupidity in this journey.

These folks really do need to get their act together.


----------



## bgc_fan

AltaRed said:


> Roadside assistance should know better. Being half-pregnant is not a credible option when the motive should be to promote EVs. The point is the inconsistencies that exist.
> 
> BC Hydro is on a 'full court' press to convert homeowners in our area from gas heating to heat pump and yet they cannot reliably supply electricity to us. Another example of stupidity in this journey.
> 
> These folks really do need to get their act together.


The photo was also over 2 years old with few, if any options for an EV truck that could tow a trailer at the time. Maybe you shouldn't be that judgemental and consider that there are some practical considerations and context. With Rivian and Ford Lightning coming to the market, I am sure these inconsistencies will be addressed. Especially since Europe has a more aggressive EV strategy.


----------



## agent99

Don't believe everything you see on the internet  By the way, no reason not to use biodiesel in diesel trucks and generators. The UK cooking oil recycler I linked earlier turns used cooking oil collected from restaurant chains like McDonalds who use it in part to power their diesel trucks. Vehicles don't have to be EVs to be green


----------



## agent99

AltaRed said:


> These folks really do need to get their act together.


It's really us, the general public that need to get our acts together. 

My wife monitors our electricity usage. Just happened that this morning she told me we had just recovered our heat pump/energy upgrade investment after 10 years. This could have happened earlier, but in Ontario our electricity costs were reduced rather than increased during this period. We were also away more. A 10 year payback was the original objective, so more than happy we spent the $20k.


----------



## Eder

agent99 said:


> . The UK cooking oil recycler I linked earlier turns used cooking oil collected from restaurant chains like McDonalds who use it in part to power their diesel trucks. Vehicles don't have to be EVs to be green


But cooking oil produces more CO2 than diesel...Also gets worse mileage.


----------



## MrMatt

Eder said:


> The hypocrisy makes the whole shindig a joke, but we're not supposed to laugh?
> The capper is that if true the gen sets running on vegetable oil produce higher amounts of CO2 than running on diesel.


Why?
Does anyone really think these guys actually care? 
The religion of political climate change is all about the demon of fossil fuels.

As you point out the actual CO2 is irrelevant, just like the environmental damage from windmills, or mining pollution for battery materials. they don't care. It's just a political game to give them more power.


----------



## AltaRed

bgc_fan said:


> The photo was also over 2 years old with few, if any options for an EV truck that could tow a trailer at the time. Maybe you shouldn't be that judgemental and consider that there are some practical considerations and context. With Rivian and Ford Lightning coming to the market, I am sure these inconsistencies will be addressed. Especially since Europe has a more aggressive EV strategy.


I recognize the amusement of it in at least 2 ways: 1) Not having an EV truck to pull the battery cart, and 2) the idiot running out of motive power in the first place. We will actually see more of this sort of thing but I also believe the inconsistencies will fade with time. I posted that particular link intentionally (and as a question) to poke the bear with a stick to keep things interesting and to keep green energy advocates a little more honest/practical, as a way to hopefully avoid the worst of the stupid stuffl. Of course, that link is exaggerated, in some error, with some truth as well.

On a broader scale, green energy advocates need to be kept on their toes to mitigate their tendency to wear blinders. So called progressive countries of northern Europe (like the UK and Germany) are doing really swell these days with their flight to green electricity, aren't they? There is a movie called 'Bridge Too Far' that some of those dolts should watch as part of their school lessons.

We are going to see some spectacular failures* along the way to green, as it is when major disruption comes along. The key is to be methodical about change without being headlong stupid about it. For me, there is no EV in my immediate future, nor will BCH (BC Hydro) suck me in to a heat pump replacement any time soon. I suspect the long term payout favours a heat pump under current pricing and incentive conditions but I cannot trust BCH to deliver the extra surge of electricity when I need it most by circa 2025, and not at a competitive price. I see reasonable risk of 20+ cent power and brown outs in our relatively near future due to zealous politically motivated greenwashing. I have no intention being part of a spectacular failure.

* Bolt fires and the need for GM to replace all of the Bolt battery packs is one manufacturing example of too far, too fast. There will be more.


----------



## bgc_fan

AltaRed said:


> I recognize the amusement of it in at least 2 ways: 1) Not having an EV truck to pull the battery cart, and 2) the idiot running out of motive power in the first place. We will actually see more of this sort of thing but I also believe the inconsistencies will fade with time. I posted that particular link intentionally (and as a question) to poke the bear with a stick to keep things interesting and to keep green energy advocates a little more honest/practical, as a way to hopefully avoid the worst of the stupid stuffl. Of course, that link is exaggerated, in some error, with some truth as well.
> 
> On a broader scale, green energy advocates need to be kept on their toes to mitigate their tendency to wear blinders. So called progressive countries of northern Europe (like the UK and Germany) are doing really swell these days with their flight to green electricity, aren't they? There is a movie called 'Bridge Too Far' that some of those dolts should watch as part of their school lessons.
> 
> We are going to see some spectacular failures* along the way to green, as it is when major disruption comes along. The key is to be methodical about change without being headlong stupid about it. For me, there is no EV in my immediate future, nor will BCH (BC Hydro) suck me in to a heat pump replacement any time soon. I suspect the long term payout favours a heat pump under current pricing and incentive conditions but I cannot trust BCH to deliver the extra surge of electricity when I need it most by circa 2025, and not at a competitive price. I see reasonable risk of 20+ cent power and brown outs in our relatively near future due to zealous politically motivated greenwashing. I have no intention being part of a spectacular failure.
> 
> * Bolt fires and the need for GM to replace all of the Bolt battery packs is one manufacturing example of too far, too fast. There will be more.


Industry is still early yet and not mature, but you're not going to see progress if everytime there is a set back, you just say, nope, not going to work and just stop. Keep in mind that there are a lot of practical reasons for EV, and the UK is seeing that with their logistally issues with gas. An island that is dependent on importing oil and gas has a pretty high motivation to get rid of that weakness. 

BCH will have to adjust, but in the East, there is a surplus of electricity so that's not an issue. 

As for fires, well, it obvious due to numbers that there are more ICE fires, it's just that news just doesn't report them. Tesla is facing scrutiny for its cars catching on fire, but electric cars could actually end up being safer than gas-powered cars


----------



## Covariance

Does anyone have a link or tool to calculate the cost “to fuel” an EV that is known to be accurate? I’m looking for an empirical calculation not theory. Let’s say for a Model 3 or Y? For comparison I know the mileage I get with my car in highway use. So this is a real world, empirical metric I can use to calculate real world cost (with the other inputs being distance and price /litre of gas). 
Also, I assume there is parasitic loss while the EV is parked and any estimate again for the same models. 
There are a lot of claims that the running cost of EV is lower (with scant details) and I just want to run my own numbers and see what the real difference for me would be. Thanks.


----------



## agent99

bgc_fan said:


> ... you're not going to see progress if everytime there is a set back, you just say, nope, not going to work and just stop.


You are right. Anti-Greenies need to get those blinders off. Otherwise, expect governments to act. Maybe a big tax on natural gas in BC would work better than incentives?


----------



## bgc_fan

Covariance said:


> Does anyone have a link or tool to calculate the cost “to fuel” an EV that is known to be accurate? I’m looking for an empirical calculation not theory. Let’s say for a Model 3 or Y? For comparison I know the mileage I get with my car in highway use. So this is a real world, empirical metric I can use to calculate real world cost (with the other inputs being distance and price /litre of gas).
> Also, I assume there is parasitic loss while the EV is parked and any estimate again for the same models.
> There are a lot of claims that the running cost of EV is lower (with scant details) and I just want to run my own numbers and see what the real difference for me would be. Thanks.


If you're fueling at home, you would just calculate using your hydro rate against the car capacity. 
But for mileage, there's the MPGe (Miles per Gallon equivalent), with 1 gallon being equivalent to 33.7 kWh. Fueleconomy.gov Top Ten

So using Ontario rate at low peak 8.2 ¢/kWh and the Tesla 3 SR+ RWD at 142 MPGe, you can get 227.2 km for $2.76. There is going to be some battery drain, but if you drive often, it's probably negligible, but it depends on the EV, as Tesla is known to be the worst for that: https://tesla-info.com/blog/vampire-battery-drain.php.

Compare to an Toyota Yaris with a 35 MPG efficiency: 142 Miles requires 4.06 Gal @ $1.54/L average in Ontario gives you $23.66.

Sounds reasonable?


----------



## bgc_fan

agent99 said:


> You are right. Anti-Greenies need to get those blinders off. Otherwise, expect governments to act. Maybe a big tax on natural gas in BC would work better than incentives?


Well, the carbon tax is supposed to do that, and considering that the majority of BC's energy mix is hydro, I'd imagine that it's pretty green. https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-a...itorial-energy-profiles-british-columbia.html

But some of the arguments here are some that you could have used against cars, since you would have had horses pull cars for various reasons: Reasons horses towed cars... cars got stuck easy, horses pulled them out... but did you know Nantucket outlawed cars from 1900 to 1918?


----------



## AltaRed

Agreed the increasing carbon tax on natural gas is the incentive to get off nat gas, and that will continue to climb over time. What's not said is electrical rates will have to increase too. There should be full transparency in 'get off gas' promotions so that homeowners can truly make informed decisions.


----------



## bgc_fan

AltaRed said:


> Agreed the increasing carbon tax on natural gas is the incentive to get off nat gas, and that will continue to climb over time. What's not said is electrical rates will have to increase too. There should be full transparency in 'get off gas' promotions so that homeowners can truly make informed decisions.


Only if the electrical rates are based on a carbon based fuel. If it's hydro or solar, or other renewable source, any electrical rate increase would be minimal, if we're talking about carbon tax impact.
If we're talking about market demand and supply, that's a different argument altogether.


----------



## Covariance

bgc_fan said:


> If you're fueling at home, you would just calculate using your hydro rate against the car capacity.
> But for mileage, there's the MPGe (Miles per Gallon equivalent), with 1 gallon being equivalent to 33.7 kWh. Fueleconomy.gov Top Ten
> 
> So using Ontario rate at low peak 8.2 ¢/kWh and the Tesla 3 SR+ RWD at 142 MPGe, you can get 227.2 km for $2.76. There is going to be some battery drain, but if you drive often, it's probably negligible, but it depends on the EV, as Tesla is known to be the worst for that: https://tesla-info.com/blog/vampire-battery-drain.php.
> 
> Compare to an Toyota Yaris with a 35 MPG efficiency: 142 Miles requires 4.06 Gal @ $1.54/L average in Ontario gives you $23.66.
> 
> Sounds reasonable?


Thanks for this. Are people saying these MPGe metrics are realistic and backed up with empirical data?


----------



## agent99

bgc_fan said:


> So using Ontario rate at low peak 8.2 ¢/kWh
> 
> Sounds reasonable?


No. Electricity costs more than double that in Ontario. That might be close to the TOU base cost/kwh, but there are several charges on top of that. I checked and the cost of our off-peak electricity is about 17.5c/kwh wwhen delivery charges, regulatory charges, HST and rebates are accounted for.


----------



## bgc_fan

Covariance said:


> Thanks for this. Are people saying these MPGe metrics are realistic and backed up with empirical data?


Well, they're derived by the US EPA, so I imagine they are backed up with empirical data, similar to the MPG for ICE cars. Of course, their conditions aren't necessarily real world conditions, but should be good enough for comparison.


----------



## bgc_fan

agent99 said:


> No. Electricity costs almost double that in Ontario. That might be the base cost/kwh, but there are several charges on top of that. I think it is somewhere in the 16c/kwh region.


Not quite, and that's the problem. The main extra charge is the delivery charge and that's not really spelled out on how it's calculated, so assuming that it doubles the cost, that works out to $5.52. Still significantly lower.


----------



## doctrine

bgc_fan said:


> Not quite, and that's the problem. The main extra charge is the delivery charge and that's not really spelled out on how it's calculated, so assuming that it doubles the cost, that works out to $5.52. Still significantly lower.


It is lower today, but there is no guarantee it will be that way for long. In Europe, power rates are surging because of fossil fuel shortages, at a rate multiple times faster than increases in gasoline/diesel. Natural gas is well above $200 a barrel equivalent, in some places hitting $250 a barrel. Electric cars have historically been about 3 times cheaper, but that is when natural gas was $25 a barrel and oil was $60. When oil is $80 and natural gas is $225-250 and that goes into the power rates, it will change the equation. Heck, even if you signed a sweet fixed price contract for electricity in Europe, your provider may have already gone bankrupt leaving you fully exposed. 

For now though, status quo and enjoy your low electricity in North America and low electric charging costs, thanks to our abundant fossil fuel production.


----------



## agent99

Covariance said:


> Thanks for this. Are people saying these MPGe metrics are realistic and backed up with empirical data?


This European site says it uses real world data. I have not looked at it closely. It quotes energy usage in Wh/km with Tesla 3 at about 140. At 17.5c/Kwh that would be about $2.45/100km. 









EV Database


Energy consumption of full electric vehicles cheatsheet. Quick reference for all plug-in hybrid en full electric cars.




ev-database.org


----------



## agent99

bgc_fan said:


> Not quite, and that's the problem. The main extra charge is the delivery charge and that's not really spelled out on how it's calculated, so assuming that it doubles the cost, that works out to $5.52. Still significantly lower.


I worked out the actual number and edited my post just before you posted. Your 8.5c was misleading.


----------



## Covariance

agent99 said:


> This site says it uses real world data. I have not looked at it closely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EV Database
> 
> 
> Energy consumption of full electric vehicles cheatsheet. Quick reference for all plug-in hybrid en full electric cars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ev-database.org


Thank you. this is really helpful and gives me what I was looking for.


----------



## bgc_fan

doctrine said:


> It is lower today, but there is no guarantee it will be that way for long. In Europe, power rates are surging because of fossil fuel shortages, at a rate multiple times faster than increases in gasoline/diesel. Natural gas is well above $200 a barrel equivalent, in some places hitting $250 a barrel. Electric cars have historically been about 3 times cheaper, but that is when natural gas was $25 a barrel and oil was $60. When oil is $80 and natural gas is $225-250 and that goes into the power rates, it will change the equation. Heck, even if you signed a sweet fixed price contract for electricity in Europe, your provider may have already gone bankrupt leaving you fully exposed.
> 
> For now though, status quo and enjoy your low electricity in North America and low electric charging costs, thanks to our abundant fossil fuel production.


You're kind of wrong depending which province you're talking about. Quebec, pretty much all hydroelectric, so no relation to fossil fuels, and the same with BC. Ontario is primarily nuclear and hydro. So 3 of the largest provinces in Canada don't use fossil fuels as their major power source. It's really only Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Nova Scotia where there's an issue with fossil fuel. So if your concern is rising prices, well, for the most part EV would be the way to go.


----------



## AltaRed

That is a myopic response focused on just a few jurisdictions. Neither ON or QC are major factors in North American generation capacity. North America is slowly working itself into a corner on ways to massively increase generating capacity to meet incremental demands without huge cost increases. New hydro generating opportunities are far and few between and existing ones, at least in the arid Western half of the continent, are losing capacity due to climate change.

BC will be 'teats up' after Site C and it is only a matter of time before Rocky Mountain capacity at places like Mica Dam on the Columbia will go into decline (receding glaciers and less rainfall and snow pack). California is pretty much f**ked with their current policies of restricting natural gas generation, losing import capability and lower hydro capacity of of their own. Pretty soon, the generators could stop turning at Hoover Dam and Glen Canyon Dam. Add in new transmission and distribution capacity from new sites and costs have nowhere to go but up.

We have not yet begun to realize what the cost of electricity is going to be 10 years from now when multiple new nuclear plants may be the only solution. Until then, natural gas fired generation will have to save the day.


----------



## agent99

Luckily, we don't live in the USA  But sure - they can buy our gas!

They are building more and more wind and solar power plants. Renewables currently produce 21% of US electricity and are second only to natural gas. It is predicted that coal will increase in use and soon be about the same as renewables because of the increasing price of gas. Clean coal could be their way of increasing power generation, but it will need much improved technology such as carbon capture (not a long term solution, in my mind). Neither gas nor coal are acceptable fuels from a global warming viewpoint, so renewables will/should be favoured long term.

Renewable generation capacity in USA is forecast to increase by as much as 10% pa in near future. They may need to develop distributed generation. Panels or turbines at every house or at least community. They do have a climate that could allow that. Another alternative for more distributed generation, is to install small modular nuclear reactors that can be built reasonably quickly and located widely.

I will probably never see this, so why worry  Just go out and buy an EV  Or a hybrid, so I can get back home when the battery runs out.


----------



## bgc_fan

AltaRed said:


> Neither ON or QC are major factors in North American generation capacity.


Who is really being myopic and still think that oil and gas are the only ways to generate electricity? Texas has been increasing their generation from wind power. And before you bring up the failure in the winter storms, it was the natural gas power plants that were frozen and didn't provide electricity. As for being major factors in NA generation, Canada as a whole does produce less than US, but that's kind of obvious. But Canada still exports about the equivalent of 1% of US production. 
Even without hydro, there's still solar and wind which are gaining percentage. Then there are the small modular nuclear reactors as another option. The point being that not everything needs to go back to oil and gas as the default.
Second of all, the point is we're talking about our situation, not the situation in other countries. But, for that matter with the gas issues in UK, there was an increased interest in looking for EV.


----------



## AltaRed

I've never said oil or gas should necessarily be used to generate electricity, so I don't know where your spin is coming from. I have probably said somewhere in the 380+ posts of this thread, that the only feasible incremental reliable capacity in enough quantity will be from gas in the near term (next 10-20 years or so) until renewables in their multiple forms catch up. It is the only generation source that can be built quickly and in large capacities. That is a no-brainer that should be obvious to everyone.

BTW, the gas failure last winter in Texas was from both* wind power and the neglect (cost cutting) of gas producers not supplying gas to the generators, not the gas fired generators themselves. They have only themselves to blame and I think they have learned their lesson, i.e. that they need winterization of all their equipment, and in the case of gas, better treatment of the stream to reduce the risk of hydrate production in wellhead production.That production practice has been known for as long as gas has been produced from the ground.

BTW, if you had actually read Doctrine's post, you'd have realized he was talking about Europe and how lucky North America was so far with its cheap fossil fuel fired electrical production. What did your response regarding Quebec, and Ontario for that matter, have to do with high European prices and Doctrine's reasoning (cheap fossil fuels) for current inexpensive North American electricity? Getting back to Canada, it is only time before exports (possible exception Quebec and Muskrat Falls) will cease to flow. Hydro generation is tapped out for the most part and is not much of a factor in North America for some time so there is nowhere to go with that. What then?

* Circa 50% of wind power generation (16GW of 30GW installed) went offline, wind being about 20% of the state's electrical generation. 30GW was lost from the other 80% of the state's electrical generation (~54% gas, 19% coal, 9% nuclear) of which some nuclear was offline). The math suggests gas performed marvellously on a relative basis.


----------



## bgc_fan

AltaRed said:


> I've never said oil or gas should necessarily be used to generate electricity, so I don't know where your spin is coming from. I have probably said somewhere in the 380+ posts of this thread, that the only feasible incremental reliable capacity in enough quantity will be from gas in the near term (next 10-20 years or so) until renewables in their multiple forms catch up. It is the only generation source that can be built quickly and in large capacities. That is a no-brainer that should be obvious to everyone.
> 
> BTW, the gas failure last winter in Texas was from both* wind power and the neglect (cost cutting) of gas producers not supplying gas to the generators, not the gas fired generators themselves. They have only themselves to blame and I think they have learned their lesson, i.e. that they need winterization of all their equipment, and in the case of gas, better treatment of the stream to reduce the risk of hydrate production in wellhead production.That production practice has been known for as long as gas has been produced from the ground.
> 
> BTW, if you had actually read Doctrine's post, you'd have realized he was talking about Europe and how lucky North America was so far with its cheap fossil fuel fired electrical production. What did your response regarding Quebec, and Ontario for that matter, have to do with high European prices and Doctrine's reasoning (cheap fossil fuels) for current inexpensive North American electricity? Getting back to Canada, it is only time before exports (possible exception Quebec and Muskrat Falls) will cease to flow. Hydro generation is tapped out for the most part and is not much of a factor in North America for some time so there is nowhere to go with that. What then?
> 
> * Circa 50% of wind power generation (16GW of 30GW installed) went offline, wind being about 20% of the state's electrical generation. 30GW was lost from the other 80% of the state's electrical generation (~54% gas, 19% coal, 9% nuclear) of which some nuclear was offline). The math suggests gas performed marvellously on a relative basis.


As for @doctrine's post, my point is that Canada's energy mix is primarily hydro and that most Canadians aren't benefiting from cheap fossil fuel as an energy source, which was his argument. But, you know what's funny is that he is undercutting his argument. If we had higher fossil fuel prices, we would also have higher gas prices which means people would be looking for alternatives. The more fossil fuel prices go up as cost of energy generation, the more attractive alternative energy sources are. As for the future of hydro, Quebec is exporting quite a bit to NY, so if there are generation issues, that can be reduced.

As for Texas, regardless of your argument that it was a gas supply was the issue, the fact of the matter is they didn't adequately prepare and the generators weren't useful. But, if you're going to excuse gas generation due to lack of winterization, you'll have to give the same excuse to the wind turbine production. As for your numbers, they can be spun a few ways, namely that while some of the wind power generation was off-line, during winter, they don't expect wind power to generate as much electricity. But that said, depending on your source, the numbers for their energy generation is a little over the map. From ERCOT in Feb 2021, you have 51% natural gas and 24.8% wind, with a wind installed capacity of 25GW. However, there's an obvious difference between capacity and actual output. But then in March, wind power accounted for 38.6% of the electrical generation, so it's going to fluctuate https://electrek.co/2021/04/07/egeb-texas-wind-power-smashes-records-in-march/.


----------



## AltaRed

North America would indeed have higher gasoline prices, but we would also have higher electrical prices for the portion of electricity generated by fossil fuels. Plus the incremental cost of bringing something like BC Hydro's Site C into operation and the fiasco that Muskrat Falls has become in the case of looking closer to home.

Before we got so far off track, the point really is that we likely have not even begun to see the ramp up of electrical prices over the next 5-10 years. Electrical use, whether in land vehicles or heating, is going to cost a lot more than we can imagine today, be it solar, wind, nuclear or fossil fuel.


----------



## doctrine

bgc_fan said:


> You're kind of wrong depending which province you're talking about. Quebec, pretty much all hydroelectric, so no relation to fossil fuels, and the same with BC. Ontario is primarily nuclear and hydro. So 3 of the largest provinces in Canada don't use fossil fuels as their major power source. It's really only Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Nova Scotia where there's an issue with fossil fuel. So if your concern is rising prices, well, for the most part EV would be the way to go.


Are you moving to Quebec? Get ready to pay literally the highest taxes in North America with some of the lowest incomes. There is no free lunch and that is going to become more obvious very quickly.

For the rest of Canada, I'm quite correct and the risk is there. 40% of Ontario power is natural gas despite an abundance of nuclear and hydro. France is suffering today and 70% of their power is nuclear, because the other 30% has shot up in price by 2000%. That could easily happen in Ontario. It may take longer in BC, but I suspect in the medium term, low electricity prices with more electric vehicles will begin to eat all that cheap hydro power up, which is not unlimited, and then that gig will be up too. Don't forget that just about every place in North America has the same plans to make their grid like Europe and so expecting a different result is..well.. Someone has to pay to expand the power infrastructure by 200% in 20 years or less.

Sorry if I'm not writing an essay on this to explain every argument, but the bottom line is that high energy prices and the energy crisis WILL come here one way or another. And electric vehicles will not save you and entitle you to cheap transportation forever, and it may be sooner than you think.


----------



## bgc_fan

doctrine said:


> Are you moving to Quebec? Get ready to pay literally the highest taxes in North America with some of the lowest incomes. There is no free lunch and that is going to become more obvious very quickly.
> 
> For the rest of Canada, I'm quite correct and the risk is there. 40% of Ontario power is natural gas despite an abundance of nuclear and hydro. France is suffering today and 70% of their power is nuclear, because the other 30% has shot up in price by 2000%. That could easily happen in Ontario. It may take longer in BC, but I suspect in the medium term, low electricity prices with more electric vehicles will begin to eat all that cheap hydro power up, which is not unlimited, and then that gig will be up too. Don't forget that just about every place in North America has the same plans to make their grid like Europe and so expecting a different result is..well.. Someone has to pay to expand the power infrastructure by 200% in 20 years or less.
> 
> Sorry if I'm not writing an essay on this to explain every argument, but the bottom line is that high energy prices and the energy crisis WILL come here one way or another. And electric vehicles will not save you and entitle you to cheap transportation forever, and it may be sooner than you think.


Have lived in Quebec so I am quite aware of the taxes. Doesn't change the fact they are primarily hydro.

You want to check Ontario again? Because I see 3% natural gas, less than 7% for wind. 60% nuclear, and 26% hydro.

Again, if your case is that hydrocarbon fuels are going to go up, then the same is going to be the case for fuel. How it affects end electrical prices will depend on the mix. However, the fun thing about free market is if there is going to be an increase, then you'll see someone take the opportunity to provide something cheaper.

As for Canada's electrical capacity, we export 8% of it to the US, that is a lot of leeway if necessary.


----------



## bgc_fan

AltaRed said:


> North America would indeed have higher gasoline prices, but we would also have higher electrical prices for the portion of electricity generated by fossil fuels. Plus the incremental cost of bringing something like BC Hydro's Site C into operation and the fiasco that Muskrat Falls has become in the case of looking closer to home.
> 
> Before we got so far off track, the point really is that we likely have not even begun to see the ramp up of electrical prices over the next 5-10 years. Electrical use, whether in land vehicles or heating, is going to cost a lot more than we can imagine today, be it solar, wind, nuclear or fossil fuel.


If you are basing it on upgrading infrastructure, that's one thing. If you are basing it on supply, then you'll see more people setting up solar and wind farms as it becomes more economical.


----------



## AltaRed

And more idle standby generating capacity to maintain grid stability, as in gas fired generation paid to be idle much of the time. Prices are going way up over time, be it electricity to the consumer, nat gas to the consumer, or gasoline (and/or hydrogen) at the pump. There is no free lunch and the relative risks of one source or another will depend on where one is geographically.


----------



## bgc_fan

AltaRed said:


> And more idle standby generating capacity to maintain grid stability, as in gas fired generation paid to be idle much of the time. Prices are going way up over time, be it electricity to the consumer, nat gas to the consumer, or gasoline (and/or hydrogen) at the pump. There is no free lunch and the relative risks of one source or another will depend on where one is geographically.


Energy storage would be the approach to address this and smooth out the peaks and valleys (pumped water storage, batteries, compressed air). Gas fired plants are pretty inefficient for this type of application. Of course, that's what we use because that's what we're familiar with, but as technology improves or gets refined we can look for alternatives.


----------



## AltaRed

None of the energy storage options are inexpensive , at least not today. The point is electricity will still cost more than it does today. I have lived in many jurisdictions in North America and real life gets in the way of theoretical solutions. FWIW, pumped storage is being looked at and in some cases implemented in a number of jurisdictions. It is operationally quite inefficient with losses incurred both ways but better than most storage options today.


----------



## agent99

AltaRed said:


> FWIW, pumped storage is being looked at and in some cases implemented in a number of jurisdictions. It is operationally quite inefficient with losses incurred both ways but better than most storage options today.


A pumped storage facility was built at Niagara back in the 50s and was refurbished in 2016 (Sir Adam Beck Pump Generating Station ). Whenever I check, I find it not being used. They fire up the gas plants instead. But just to prove me wrong, right now it is generating 16MW. (vs 175MW theoretical capability if fully operational)

Pole mounted storage is another option being looked at to even out load on distribution systems. Seems to make sense.


> A pole-mounted energy storage system located in Toronto’s North York neighbourhood is showing positive results in the early stages of a pilot program. Put into service in August 2016, this unique energy storage system is mounted to the top of an existing hydro pole. The system stores energy during off-peak hours and releases power as needed. The project team is currently monitoring how the technology responds to real-time data. From initial results, the energy storage system has demonstrated an ability to reduce strain on the local transformer.


----------



## agent99

Are we done with this? Can we go back to discussing if an EV will be our next car??  

Never mind cars - We have two electric ferries on their way to our area. They will be operational next year.


----------



## AltaRed

agent99 said:


> A pumped storage facility was built at Niagara back in the 50s and was refurbished in 2016 (Sir Adam Beck Pump Generating Station ). Whenever I check, I find it not being used. They fire up the gas plants instead. But just to prove me wrong, right now it is generating 16MW. (vs 175MW theoretical capability if fully operational)
> 
> Pole mounted storage is another option being looked at to even out load on distribution systems. Seems to make sense.


Of course, pumped storage has been in operation at Niagara for a very long time. I worked for Ontario Hydro for 10 years and understood system ops. Try building a greenfield facility like that today. There are anecdotes everywhere for whatever case you want to make. A material amount of energy storage to offset solar and wind deficiencies is not an economic solution in most jurisdictions today. 

Until such time that alternatives become cost competitive and/or natural gas/LNG becomes considerably more expensive. nat gas fired generation will continue to be built, perhaps for 20+ more years. Only time will tell. Ideologically focused people need to come to terms with that on a real life basis.


----------



## AltaRed

agent99 said:


> Are we done with this? Can we go back to discussing if an EV will be our next car??
> 
> Never mind cars


BC Ferries has had electrically driven short haul ferries in use for a few years with more to come. I would also like to see some EV garbage trucks, transit buses, delivery vans and school buses start to show up.

And no, I won't have an EV car in the foreseeable future. I don't trust quality, don't trust electrical rates and don't trust range. The initial Teslas were junk, the Bolts catch fire and no one else has enough pure EVs on the road to know if they are anything more than technical experiments. Perhaps in 2-3 years when VW (and others such as the Mustang MachE) have millions of units on the road and have some road history.


----------



## agent99

AltaRed said:


> Try building a greenfield facility like that today. There are anecdotes everywhere for whatever case you want to make. A material amount of energy storage to offset solar and wind deficiencies is not an economic solution in most jurisdictions today.


Well, there are some who don't think that way:








Overview — Ontario Pumped Storage Project


The Ontario Pumped Storage Project (OPSP) is a made-in-Ontario solution that will cut greenhouse gas emissions while providing clean, reliable, secure and cost-effective electricity for the whole province.



www.ontariopumpedstorage.com





*



TC Energy is proposing to develop an energy storage facility that would provide 1,000 megawatts of flexible, clean energy to Ontario’s electricity system using a process known as pumped storage.

Click to expand...





The project will reduce the need for reliance on natural-gas-fired power generation, will save Ontario ratepayers $250 million per year,

Click to expand...

*


----------



## agent99

AltaRed said:


> And no, I won't have an EV car in the foreseeable future. I *don't trust* quality, *don't trust* electrical rates and *don't trust* range.


You are not a very trusting person 😎


----------



## Mortgage u/w

AltaRed said:


> BC Ferries has had electrically driven short haul ferries in use for a few years with more to come. I would also like to see some EV garbage trucks, transit buses, delivery vans and school buses start to show up.
> 
> And no, I won't have an EV car in the foreseeable future. I don't trust quality, don't trust electrical rates and don't trust range. The initial Teslas were junk, the Bolts catch fire and no one else has enough pure EVs on the road to know if they are anything more than technical experiments. Perhaps in 2-3 years when VW (and others such as the Mustang MachE) have millions of units on the road and have some road history.


Have you noticed the number of cars that Tesla has pushed out lately? They have done what no other car manufacturer has done in the same time period. 

I think they've been out long enough to trust they are not in experimental stage. Updates are common and keep the car technology up to date. Don't fear EV - time to embrace them!


----------



## AltaRed

Mortgage u/w said:


> Have you noticed the number of cars that Tesla has pushed out lately? They have done what no other car manufacturer has done in the same time period.
> 
> I think they've been out long enough to trust they are not in experimental stage. Updates are common and keep the car technology up to date. Don't fear EV - time to embrace them!


I agree the newest versions of Teslas are now mainstream but even the newest Teslas would not be an option for me - for a mostly different reason. They are some of the most boring looking vehicles I have ever seen. I'd be more responsive to something with signature character, like knowing a Beemer is a Beemer and an Audi is an an Audi. It is going to be awhile yet.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

AltaRed said:


> I agree the newest versions of Teslas are now mainstream but even the newest Teslas would not be an option for me - for a mostly different reason. They are some of the most boring looking vehicles I have ever seen. I'd be more responsive to something with signature character, like knowing a Beemer is a Beemer and an Audi is an an Audi. It is going to be awhile yet.


I get what your saying and I was of same thought. Until I drove and bought one. Its one of the coolest experiences - doesn't come close to any other car I have owned. If you like the drive of a BMW and AUDI, you will love TESLA. It will far exceed your expectations.

As far as looks - well, like any other car, you either love em or hate em.


----------



## AltaRed

agent99 said:


> Well, there are some who don't think that way:


I have followed that proposal somewhat but it is still very much 'pie in the sky'. Even the current Feasibility Study is very much 'what if' blueskying. It is years from happening, and will only happen if ratepayers are prepared to guarantee an appropriate return. 

P.S. I hope it does go if sufficiently economic. I am a TRP shareholder and would like to see divergence in their business model. I am not anti-EV and not anti-green. I simply want real life economics rather than ideological fluff.


----------



## AltaRed

Mortgage u/w said:


> I get what your saying and I was of same thought. Until I drove and bought one. Its one of the coolest experiences - doesn't come close to any other car I have owned. If you like the drive of a BMW and AUDI, you will love TESLA. It will far exceed your expectations.
> 
> As far as looks - well, like any other car, you either love em or hate em.


My spouse's nephew owns an S model (not sure of the vintage - maybe 5 yrs old?). He can keep it. However, the Porsche Taycan is looking more promising in that it looks at least a bit like a Porsche.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

AltaRed said:


> My spouse's nephew owns an S model (not sure of the vintage - maybe 5 yrs old?). He can keep it. However, the Porsche Taycan is looking more promising in that it looks at least a bit like a Porsche.


Many are now producing electric vehicles which look like their gas equivalents - take a look at BMW i4. However, these are not on a fully EV platform. In any case, there are many models to choose from.


----------



## Covariance

Mortgage u/w said:


> I get what your saying and I was of same thought. Until I drove and bought one. Its one of the coolest experiences - doesn't come close to any other car I have owned. If you like the drive of a BMW and AUDI, you will love TESLA. It will far exceed your expectations.
> 
> As far as looks - well, like any other car, you either love em or hate em.


Your sentiments reflect everyone in my circle that has bought one. People love them.

My use case is a difficult one as I have a mix of frequent local and the occasional (monthly) 600km drives 

May I ask which model you have and real world range, electricity consumption? thanks


----------



## bgc_fan

Mortgage u/w said:


> I get what your saying and I was of same thought. Until I drove and bought one. Its one of the coolest experiences - doesn't come close to any other car I have owned. If you like the drive of a BMW and AUDI, you will love TESLA. It will far exceed your expectations.
> 
> As far as looks - well, like any other car, you either love em or hate em.


Personally, I'd pass on Tesla. When it was the only game in town, sure, I'd overlook the lack of QC, but now that more mainstream manufacturers are starting to come aboard, I'm looking elsewhere.
For example, the VW ID.4 is cheaper than the Model 3 and looks pretty good with a decent range.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

Covariance said:


> Your sentiments reflect everyone in my circle that has bought one. People love them.
> 
> My use case is a difficult one as I have a mix of frequent local and the occasional (monthly) 600km drives
> 
> May I ask which model you have and real world range, electricity consumption? thanks


Yup - I never thought I'd be one of those people that get excited about a car. 

I have a Model 3 SR+. Range is rated at 423kms. Real world range is obviously less - but, which ICE vehicle is true to their posted range? Many factors such as climate and driving habits will obviously affect range.

The thing is you don't really need to worry about range. Just like a cell phone, you don't panic when your battery is low - nor do you choose a phone based on battery longevity alone. Just like a cell phone, you have the ability to charge it all the time. 

So, the idea is to keep your car charged at all times when not in use. That means, you always leave with a "topped-off" battery capacity. When planning a long commute, the car will tell you what you need to do to get there. It will involve stopping at a charging station as some point along the way. You technically can never get stranded - unless you ignore what your car tells you.

Electricity consumption on average: 20,000 kms = $300.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

bgc_fan said:


> Personally, I'd pass on Tesla. When it was the only game in town, sure, I'd overlook the lack of QC, but now that more mainstream manufacturers are starting to come aboard, I'm looking elsewhere.
> For example, the VW ID.4 is cheaper than the Model 3 and looks pretty good with a decent range.


Hopefully, there will be enough manufactures and EV models to please everyone. TESLA changed the game in the automotive industry so we can't knock them for doing so. Quality was an issue in the past - not the case anymore. At least, not more concerning than any other car manufacture quality. 

The advantage with Tesla is their advanced tech and vast charging station infrastructure. It will require a lot for others to match. In any case, I think EV is headed in the right direction and hope many more will "convert".


----------



## agent99

AltaRed said:


> I have followed that proposal somewhat but it is still very much 'pie in the sky'. Even the current Feasibility Study is very much 'what if' blueskying. It is years from happening, and will only happen if ratepayers are prepared to guarantee an appropriate return.


That feasibility study was done in early 2020.
This study on regional economic impact a little later in 2020.
Both studies are positive on benefits of project.

Doesn't seem like pie-in-sky to me or just blueskying. Don't be so negative!

TCEnergy's time line is to first get DND approval (complete) then complete environmental assessments and permitting by early 2024. Construction in 2024-2028. (Why so long for construction? It is a fairly simple project.) Startup and operation in 2028.

This project seems like a no-brainer. Such a simple process, yet benefits are huge. Hopefully profitable for TRP so the project will soon move further ahead. (I am also a long time investor).

Added
As discussed, Canada has just one PSH at present - The Beck pumped Pumped-Storage Hydro at Niagara,
From CER:
The United States (U.S.) has over 30 PSH facilities with a combined capacity of 22 gigawatts. U.S. facilities generate around 23 000 gigawatt hours (GW.h) per year, and consume 29 000 GW.h to operate their pumps. Despite this net loss of energy, the grid reliability provided by PSH facilities and the ability to generate when demand is strong is highly beneficial and will become increasingly important as Canada and the U.S. integrate more renewable power into their grids.


----------



## AltaRed

This idea is worthy of continuing to explore feasibility (lots of good reasons to go ahead) but that is all it is at the moment. Studies to date, like economic impact, are mostly marketing materials with a long ways to go to any potential FID.

My point really is that this is not yet real, ripe, or worthy of promotion. It's still an idea, not a project. That is not negativity. It is simply realism.


----------



## bgc_fan

Mortgage u/w said:


> Hopefully, there will be enough manufactures and EV models to please everyone. TESLA changed the game in the automotive industry so we can't knock them for doing so. Quality was an issue in the past - not the case anymore. At least, not more concerning than any other car manufacture quality.
> 
> The advantage with Tesla is their advanced tech and vast charging station infrastructure. It will require a lot for others to match. In any case, I think EV is headed in the right direction and hope many more will "convert".


Unless they've change things, they're primarily using human labour to do the assemble so there's a lot of inconsistencies with production quality. This guy may be nitpicking things, but when you spend $60k for a car, I'd think you'd want a high standard finish equivalent to an entry Audi. A Tesla owner detailed multiple quality-control issues but remains a supporter — and it shows why Tesla still dominates the electric car market
And then the design is a bit lacking: https://electrek.co/2019/03/05/tesla-model-3-design-flaw-underbody/
But it took 2 years before Tesla admitted the issue: https://electrek.co/2020/10/19/tesla-admits-design-flaw-rear-bumper-falling-off-water/
My issue is that Tesla is basically taking a software approach to building a car. Build V1 and release, if there are issues, do a V2 and release, and repeat. 

People talk about the tech advantage, but honestly, what exactly are we talking about? the Assisted driving? or the tablet that controls everything? For me, the tablet is actually the weakest part since physical controls on the wheel and console are a lot easier to manipulate while driving than to scroll around a touchscreen to find the correct control. I don't really have a need to be able to watch Netflix or have a car fart button.

Charging infrastructure is ahead, although other station networks are growing, so that advantage is lessened slightly.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

bgc_fan said:


> Unless they've change things, they're primarily using human labour to do the assemble so there's a lot of inconsistencies with production quality. This guy may be nitpicking things, but when you spend $60k for a car, I'd think you'd want a high standard finish equivalent to an entry Audi. A Tesla owner detailed multiple quality-control issues but remains a supporter — and it shows why Tesla still dominates the electric car market
> And then the design is a bit lacking: https://electrek.co/2019/03/05/tesla-model-3-design-flaw-underbody/
> But it took 2 years before Tesla admitted the issue: https://electrek.co/2020/10/19/tesla-admits-design-flaw-rear-bumper-falling-off-water/
> My issue is that Tesla is basically taking a software approach to building a car. Build V1 and release, if there are issues, do a V2 and release, and repeat.
> 
> People talk about the tech advantage, but honestly, what exactly are we talking about? the Assisted driving? or the tablet that controls everything? For me, the tablet is actually the weakest part since physical controls on the wheel and console are a lot easier to manipulate while driving than to scroll around a touchscreen to find the correct control. I don't really have a need to be able to watch Netflix or have a car fart button.
> 
> Charging infrastructure is ahead, although other station networks are growing, so that advantage is lessened slightly.


I guess you’ll need to own a Tesla to understand the tech part and ‘lack’ of fancy buttons. But hey, everyone has different criteria for what they want in a car.

There is a benefit of building and releasing software versions.Tesla is able to gather input from users and upgrade their software as required. Unlike a gas vehicle, you don’t need to buy the latest model to get an upgrade.


----------



## bgc_fan

Mortgage u/w said:


> I guess you’ll need to own a Tesla to understand the tech part and ‘lack’ of fancy buttons. But hey, everyone has different criteria for what they want in a car.
> 
> There is a benefit of building and releasing software versions.Tesla is able to gather input from users and upgrade their software as required. Unlike a gas vehicle, you don’t need to buy the latest model to get an upgrade.


I get it, some people think that no physical buttons is somewhat cool, but for me, it's a negative, especially if something goes wrong with the screen.

Yes, that's fine for software, not for hardware, especially cars. I'm not talking about updating the Tesla software, I'm talking about releasing car iterations, and then when design flaws appear, they "fix" the design and release a new version, instead of properly designing the car in the first place.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

bgc_fan said:


> I get it, some people think that no physical buttons is somewhat cool, but for me, it's a negative, especially if something goes wrong with the screen.
> 
> Yes, that's fine for software, not for hardware, especially cars. I'm not talking about updating the Tesla software, I'm talking about releasing car iterations, and then when design flaws appear, they "fix" the design and release a new version, instead of properly designing the car in the first place.


that’s the thing about Tesla - there aren’t many mechanical parts to start with so flawed designs are very rare
It’s all software. Their strategy is to have their first year model look exactly as the most recent. And they all benefit from the same software. They maintain a better value because of this. 
it’s just a completely different experience.


----------



## agent99

AltaRed said:


> My point really is that this is not yet real, ripe, or worthy of promotion. It's still an idea, not a project. That is not negativity. It is simply realism.


 Altared is right and everyone else is wrong?? 
Again?? 
Not much point in furthering discussion.


----------



## bgc_fan

Mortgage u/w said:


> that’s the thing about Tesla - there aren’t many mechanical parts to start with so flawed designs are very rare
> It’s all software. Their strategy is to have their first year model look exactly as the most recent. And they all benefit from the same software. They maintain a better value because of this.
> it’s just a completely different experience.


It still has wheels and doors. The main QC issues aren't the software, it's things like panel fit and trim that doesn't line up correctly. Maybe you consider these not to be issues, but a company that can't ensure products that are physically consistent, is one that I'd question on other aspects. This video is a somewhat random person, but a car detailer who points out some of the issues. Yes, it's just one car, but still worth looking at. Watch trending videos for you | TikTok


----------



## agent99

Mortgage u/w said:


> Hopefully, there will be enough manufactures and EV models to please everyone. TESLA changed the game in the automotive industry so we can't knock them for doing so. Quality was an issue in the past - not the case anymore. At least, not more concerning than any other car manufacture quality.
> 
> The advantage with Tesla is their advanced tech and vast charging station infrastructure. It will require a lot for others to match. In any case, I think EV is headed in the right direction and hope many more will "convert".


Biggest negative that would stop me from buying a Tesla, is the lack of a dealer network. Unless you live in a major centre, this could be a major issue. It could be when travelling too. 

And not just Tesla. Even domestic or Asian dealerships in smaller towns may not have parts, experience or equipment to resolve EV issues. This will no doubt change in time. 

Still too early for me even although a PHEV might be of interest. Just a basic car. Not interested in trying to impress the neighbors, so Audi, Porsches, Jaguars and the like would be of no interest even if I could afford them.


----------



## bgc_fan

agent99 said:


> Still too early for me even although a PHEV might be of interest. Just a basic car. Not interested in trying to impress the neighbors, so Audi, Porsches, Jaguars and the like would be of no interest even if I could afford them.


Haven't tried it out yet, but that's why I'm leaning toward the VW ID.4. https://www.vw.ca/en/models/new-vehicles/id4.html
Starts at $45k, but has a $5k EV federal incentive. But then again, you can go cheaper with Ionic, or Kia Soul. I am starting to see a number of Kia Souls on the road, and a MachE.


----------



## AltaRed

agent99 said:


> Altared is right and everyone else is wrong??
> Again??
> Not much point in furthering discussion.


When they are ready to issue a FID, I will agree with you and we will be aligned. FWIW, I do hope this will be viable. We need something to store unpredictable wind and solar power.

@post423: A neighbour's dau and SIL is buying a MachE. They have mixed reviews but that is understandable with a first edition.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

bgc_fan said:


> It still has wheels and doors. The main QC issues aren't the software, it's things like panel fit and trim that doesn't line up correctly. Maybe you consider these not to be issues, but a company that can't ensure products that are physically consistent, is one that I'd question on other aspects. This video is a somewhat random person, but a car detailer who points out some of the issues. Yes, it's just one car, but still worth looking at. Watch trending videos for you | TikTok


many other car manufactures have had similar quality issues. It’s not isolated to Tesla. You just hear about it more because Tesla owners like to dissect and talk about their cars on social media - more than any other cars out there.
I have to say that I have had zero issues with my Tesla. Nothing is out of place and works they way it was intended.



agent99 said:


> Biggest negative that would stop me from buying a Tesla, is the lack of a dealer network. Unless you live in a major centre, this could be a major issue. It could be when travelling too.


On the contrary, Tesla has a large service network. They have mobile techs that will come to you, wherever your car is located. Most issues are solved on the spot. On rare instances where they can’t, they take your car and leave you a loaner. The concept is truly unique. 
ICE car dealers need a physical location mainly to fix mechanical issues. Tesla doesn’t have an engine.


----------



## bgc_fan

Mortgage u/w said:


> many other car manufactures have had similar quality issues. It’s not isolated to Tesla. You just hear about it more because Tesla owners like to dissect and talk about their cars on social media - more than any other cars out there.
> I have to say that I have had zero issues with my Tesla. Nothing is out of place and works they way it was intended.


Sure, some people aren't going to have issues, but the question is are more people having issues than owners of other cars? Or are they just accepting them? Even Elon Musk acknowledges the issues. Elon Musk admits Tesla has quality problems Of course, most of the issues start appearing when they start ramping up production of the models because they're trying to get volume through the door and know that people will accept it.

Or worse, parts start flying off the cars: Ouch, That Hertz: Tesla recalls almost 10,000 vehicles for quality control issues


----------



## agent99

Mortgage u/w said:


> On the contrary, Tesla has a large service network. They have mobile techs that will come to you, wherever your car is located. Most issues are solved on the spot. On rare instances where they can’t, they take your car and leave you a loaner. The concept is truly unique.
> ICE car dealers need a physical location mainly to fix mechanical issues. Tesla doesn’t have an engine.


I have a friend who just bought a Tesla. They say they will deliver your new car to your home. Maybe, but not if your home is 200km from the dealer. You have to go and pick it up yourself. As he found out.

If you are hundreds of km from the nearest dealer, will they really come to you? Is this only while still under warranty? Or will they arrange for a tow? If they do come, do they bring that loaner car with them? If they tow, what do you do? I would check this out before believing their sales pitch. This is what they say on-line about Roadside assistance: https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/downloads/roadside-assistance-policy-en.pdf

Large service network? Is this over and beyond their Tesla Shops? Who do they use for that service? They have 9 Tesla locations in Ontario, 7 of which are in Toronto region, two in Ottawa. If you live in Sudbury or Thunder Bay, how long would it take for a service vehicle to arrive?

Some interesting service experiences here, by owners: 25 minute hold for emergency roadside service

There is a lot of impressive hype, but Tesla owners I have asked are not so sure. They said best not to buy one if I am in Kingston with nearest dealers in Toronto or Ottawa. We have companies that sell EVs with service locations right here.

Sorry if I sound critical - I would really like to know what their real world service is like in remote areas.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

agent99 said:


> I have a friend who just bought a Tesla. They say they will deliver your new car to your home. Maybe, but not if your home is 200km from the dealer. You have to go and pick it up yourself. As he found out.
> 
> If you are hundreds of km from the nearest dealer, will they really come to you? Is this only while still under warranty? Or will they arrange for a tow? If they do come, do they bring that loaner car with them? If they tow, what do you do? I would check this out before believing their sales pitch. This is what they say on-line about Roadside assistance: https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/downloads/roadside-assistance-policy-en.pdf
> 
> Large service network? Is this over and beyond their Tesla Shops? Who do they use for that service? They have 9 Tesla locations in Ontario, 7 of which are in Toronto region, two in Ottawa. If you live in Sudbury or Thunder Bay, how long would it take for a service vehicle to arrive?
> 
> Some interesting service experiences here, by owners: 25 minute hold for emergency roadside service
> 
> There is a lot of impressive hype, but Tesla owners I have asked are not so sure. They said best not to buy one if I am in Kingston with nearest dealers in Toronto or Ottawa. We have companies that sell EVs with service locations right here.
> 
> Sorry if I sound critical - I would really like to know what their real world service is like in remote areas.


they don’t deliver the car when you buy. You pick it up at a service center. 
again, they have mobile service reps that come to you if you have issues. This is above the Tesla shops out there. 
they can diagnose problems over the air. Car car self diagnose. If a loaner is required, they bring it to you and pick up your car. If a tow is required, tow truck cones along.

you can’t conclude an opinion only based on online rants.


----------



## AltaRed

agent99 said:


> Sorry if I sound critical - I would really like to know what their real world service is like in remote areas.


After being on the opposite side (sort of) of the argument with you on electrical storage, I concur with your skepticism on Tesla service. I don't buy into the cheerleading especially for those well out of reasonable range of a large urban center. That all said, it looks like BC is going to get a second service centre in Kelowna to complement the one in Vancouver. Finally some good news for the Okanagan Valley and vicinity but still doesn't work for those half a day (or more) drive away in eastern or northern BC.


----------



## agent99

Mortgage u/w said:


> you can’t conclude an opinion only based on online rants.


Why say that? Do you think I am doing that? I have asked actual owners. The owners website I linked may have some rants, but mostly real world experience including Canada. The Tesla roadside service page I linked was another source of some concern. Not as good as some would have us believe. It seems it is not all as rosy as you would have us believe
Anyway, I am sure the Teslas are great cars. Maybe worth relooking if they ever open a dealership here.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

agent99 said:


> Why say that? Do you think I am doing that? I have asked actual owners. The owners website I linked may have some rants, but mostly real world experience including Canada. The Tesla roadside service page I linked was another source of some concern. Not as good as some would have us believe. It seems it is not all as rosy as you would have us believe
> Anyway, I am sure the Teslas are great cars. Maybe worth relooking if they ever open a dealership here.


Just saying that we tend to repeat the noise we hear on social media. it’s hard to ignore.

nothing is perfect. In fact, plenty of other car forums online have similar rants. Tesla seems to be a hot topic so it’s easier to point them out. 
i know plenty of Audi, Land Rover, BMW and Mercedes owners and although are good cars, I still get mixed reviews. Some love them. Others wouldn’t dare buy them again. It doesn’t take much to build a bad reputation. Look at VW with their emission problems. Audi built a reputation for glitchy electronics. Land Rovers have reliability issues. Honda burns oil. Hyundai is cheap. Ford breaks down. And so on. Is it all true? Depends who you ask and their experience.

Sure, EVs could improve…..but we can say the same about ICE vehicles as well.


----------



## MrMatt

agent99 said:


> Anyway, I am sure the Teslas are great cars. Maybe worth relooking if they ever open a dealership here.


What makes you think they'll open a dealership? 
I think the dealer model is broken anyway.,

Why wait? Does a dealer really offer any value?


----------



## cliffsecord

I don’t think he means an actual dealership. I think he means a service centre. With Tesla I think the only way to buy a car is online or on the phone. For service you book online through your app and you will either have to bring it in or a mobile ranger will come to you.

I’ve had the ranger come twice. Excellent service. Went in to get my winter tires and it was also excellent service.

As for the infotainment, it took me all of three days to get used to the panel. Yes it’s a little annoying to actually have to look at the screen but you get used to it. For extra safety turn on autopilot when you have to dig through menus. Either that or use voice commands.

Knock on wood but my first year has been good.

I bought a Tesla because of their battery tech, charging network, less maintenance than hybrid or ICE and mobile service. The no haggling and gas savings was a bonus.

With respect to style. I like it. When I drive my kids to school, kids wave and give thumbs up. The younger crowd look at Tesla’s as cool cars and I might say that they aspire to get a Tesla over a BMW or Mercedes.

As for range I’ve driven from Ottawa to Niagara once and from Ottawa to Toronto once. Both times in the summer. Yes, it’s a bit longer but not much since we had to stop anyway. The only thing annoying was in Belleville this thanksgiving when the mall was closed and we had to wait outside or go across the street for a restroom break.

I also have a Honda Odyssey and I only drive that when I need to carry big things. After a few days I forgot how to use the wheel stalks on that thing.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

MrMatt said:


> What makes you think they'll open a dealership?
> I think the dealer model is broken anyway.,
> 
> Why wait? Does a dealer really offer any value?


I think the dealer model is definitely broken. I bought 2 cars this year, one of which was a Tesla.

The Tesla experience was unprecedented. I walked in the Service center to test drive the car and ask some questions. The reps were fantastic. None work on commission but are really eager to serve you. I kept getting texts from the rep on a regular basis asking how they could help further. I ordered my car on line, in the comfort of my home. Once the rep saw I bought it, he quickly called to congratulate me. I never experienced this royal treatment from any dealer before. Did I mention the reps are not commissioned?

Next car purchase was a total disaster. I was the one following up....harassing the sales rep and pressuring him to find me a car. Negotiating. Haggling. And then delivery was another disappointment. Sales rep no where to be found. Price was changed on me and needed to renegotiate the whole contract again. I'm sure not all transactions are as unpleasant as this one but I'm sure many can relate.


----------



## agent99

Mortgage u/w said:


> they don’t deliver the car when you buy. You pick it up at a service center.


They do offer to deliver, it seems. My friend was told that his could not be delivered because of his location about 2hrs away from Ottawa. So he has to take a train or get there some other way so he can drive his new car home.









Delivery Options


Delivery with Tesla is like no other experience, with a variety of options available to you depending on your location.




www.tesla.com




*Tesla Direct*
_A Tesla Advisor will safely hand off your car at a location of your choice.

With Tesla Direct, your car is brought directly to you at a location of your choice (home, workplace, etc). Once the car has arrived, sign your paperwork and be ready to drive within minutes. Tesla Direct is only available to customers within an approved distance of their local Tesla delivery center._

Perhaps they have discontinued this service?


----------



## Mortgage u/w

agent99 said:


> They do offer to deliver, it seems. My friend was told that his could not be delivered because of his location about 2hrs away from Ottawa. So he has to take a train or get there some other way so he can drive his new car home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delivery Options
> 
> 
> Delivery with Tesla is like no other experience, with a variety of options available to you depending on your location.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.tesla.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tesla Direct*
> _A Tesla Advisor will safely hand off your car at a location of your choice.
> 
> With Tesla Direct, your car is brought directly to you at a location of your choice (home, workplace, etc). Once the car has arrived, sign your paperwork and be ready to drive within minutes. Tesla Direct is only available to customers within an approved distance of their local Tesla delivery center._
> 
> Perhaps they have discontinued this service?


This may have been discontinued. I have one service center less than 10kms away, the next at 20kms away and delivery was never an option. Everyone I know did not get their car delivered.


----------



## Covariance

cliffsecord said:


> I don’t think he means an actual dealership. I think he means a service centre. With Tesla I think the only way to buy a car is online or on the phone. For service you book online through your app and you will either have to bring it in or a mobile ranger will come to you.
> 
> I’ve had the ranger come twice. Excellent service. Went in to get my winter tires and it was also excellent service.
> 
> As for the infotainment, it took me all of three days to get used to the panel. Yes it’s a little annoying to actually have to look at the screen but you get used to it. For extra safety turn on autopilot when you have to dig through menus. Either that or use voice commands.
> 
> Knock on wood but my first year has been good.
> 
> I bought a Tesla because of their battery tech, charging network, less maintenance than hybrid or ICE and mobile service. The no haggling and gas savings was a bonus.
> 
> With respect to style. I like it. When I drive my kids to school, kids wave and give thumbs up. The younger crowd look at Tesla’s as cool cars and I might say that they aspire to get a Tesla over a BMW or Mercedes.
> 
> As for range I’ve driven from Ottawa to Niagara once and from Ottawa to Toronto once. Both times in the summer. Yes, it’s a bit longer but not much since we had to stop anyway. The only thing annoying was in Belleville this thanksgiving when the mall was closed and we had to wait outside or go across the street for a restroom break.
> 
> I also have a Honda Odyssey and I only drive that when I need to carry big things. After a few days I forgot how to use the wheel stalks on that thing.


I'm evaluating options to get an EV - may I ask what model you have and the range you experience? Once or twice a month I take trips that are around 600km. I'm not overly concerned about extra long range as I stop every 2 hours to stretch and hydrate. But I don't want to be "stuck"


----------



## MrMatt

Mortgage u/w said:


> I think the dealer model is definitely broken. I bought 2 cars this year, one of which was a Tesla.
> 
> The Tesla experience was unprecedented. I walked in the Service center to test drive the car and ask some questions. The reps were fantastic. None work on commission but are really eager to serve you. I kept getting texts from the rep on a regular basis asking how they could help further. I ordered my car on line, in the comfort of my home. Once the rep saw I bought it, he quickly called to congratulate me. I never experienced this royal treatment from any dealer before. Did I mention the reps are not commissioned?
> 
> Next car purchase was a total disaster. I was the one following up....harassing the sales rep and pressuring him to find me a car. Negotiating. Haggling. And then delivery was another disappointment. Sales rep no where to be found. Price was changed on me and needed to renegotiate the whole contract again. I'm sure not all transactions are as unpleasant as this one but I'm sure many can relate.


Price was changed?
I take a copy of the contract once I sign it.

If they ask for any adjustments that aren't reasonable, I'd just walk out, after complaining to the management.


----------



## AltaRed

MrMatt said:


> Price was changed?
> I take a copy of the contract once I sign it.
> 
> If they ask for any adjustments that aren't reasonable, I'd just walk out, after complaining to the management.


I would also find that exceptionally bizarre. A contract is a contract. We bought our Mazda CX-5 in June of last year essentially remotely (including a very quick negotiation for discount off MSRP) after having first gone in for a test drive. We only went back to sign the paperwork for a 48 month 0% loan, sign the registration, have the insurance gal slap on the plates, and out we drove. All done in a matter of a few days. Could have likely done that entirely remotely but we had to go in to pick it up anyway

All that purchase stuff can be done remotely these days with scanners, e-sign, etc. except probably for the handling over of the money(?)


----------



## Mortgage u/w

MrMatt said:


> Price was changed?
> I take a copy of the contract once I sign it.
> 
> If they ask for any adjustments that aren't reasonable, I'd just walk out, after complaining to the management.


I got it all sorted out in the end. I actually gained an extra $500 off my trade-in cause they were soo confused. 

All that to say - my Tesla experience was far better.


----------



## cliffsecord

Covariance said:


> I'm evaluating options to get an EV - may I ask what model you have and the range you experience? Once or twice a month I take trips that are around 600km. I'm not overly concerned about extra long range as I stop every 2 hours to stretch and hydrate. But I don't want to be "stuck"


I have a standard range + which is rated at 400 km...In reality though you'll get less. With 100% charge I can get to Belleville through Highway 7 with 25% charge left. This is with four people and full trunk. Highway 7 is optimum because the average speed is 90~100 km/h. There I charge to 85% (30 min) and that takes me all the way to Fairview Mall in Toronto with 25% left. On the 401 I was going 115~120 km/hr. In the winter time expect a 30% loss of range due to interior heating and battery heating - this is where ICE car's waste heat comes in handy. I don't know how much it cost because I had free referral miles, but I my friend says that he usually pays around $20 round trip. Coming back was the same but we also stopped of in Perth for a bathroom break and we charged for another 15 min.

While in Toronto I plugged in to my brothers 120 V outlet and I also charged for free at a National Park (got me 50 km).

If anyone wants to see how their trip is affected by driving an EV, you can test out routes by using A Better Route Planner (Android and iOS app) where you can choose the type of car, weather and efficiency. If you are a gas and go guy then you won't want an EV. I used to be, but with AutoPilot, the ride is so much more bearable.

Tesla charging infrastructure is amazing since it's just plug and go. The car and the network handshakes automatically so no logging in with a phone or swiping a card. The car will route you to the stations, precondition the battery for optimum charging and warn you to slow down if you aren't going to make it - for the people with lead feet. I think they've placed chargers every 150 km or so along the 401 and TransCanada highway so no range anxiety at all if you stay around there. With that said, Tesla is coming out with a CCS2 adapter so you can charge up with third party fast chargers. I anticipate that Canadian tire will have chargers on all their gas stations along the 401 which will be a game changer for people along the 401. Is this an investment opportunity?

Oh yeah, two weeks after I paid for the car the price dropped $2000. I called in and they gave me the discount since at that time they had a 7 day refund policy!!


----------



## Covariance

cliffsecord said:


> I have a standard range + which is rated at 400 km...In reality though you'll get less. With 100% charge I can get to Belleville through Highway 7 with 25% charge left. This is with four people and full trunk. Highway 7 is optimum because the average speed is 90~100 km/h. There I charge to 85% (30 min) and that takes me all the way to Fairview Mall in Toronto with 25% left. On the 401 I was going 115~120 km/hr. In the winter time expect a 30% loss of range due to interior heating and battery heating - this is where ICE car's waste heat comes in handy. I don't know how much it cost because I had free referral miles, but I my friend says that he usually pays around $20 round trip. Coming back was the same but we also stopped of in Perth for a bathroom break and we charged for another 15 min.
> 
> While in Toronto I plugged in to my brothers 120 V outlet and I also charged for free at a National Park (got me 50 km).
> 
> If anyone wants to see how their trip is affected by driving an EV, you can test out routes by using A Better Route Planner (Android and iOS app) where you can choose the type of car, weather and efficiency. If you are a gas and go guy then you won't want an EV. I used to be, but with AutoPilot, the ride is so much more bearable.
> 
> Tesla charging infrastructure is amazing since it's just plug and go. The car and the network handshakes automatically so no logging in with a phone or swiping a card. The car will route you to the stations, precondition the battery for optimum charging and warn you to slow down if you aren't going to make it - for the people with lead feet. I think they've placed chargers every 150 km or so along the 401 and TransCanada highway so no range anxiety at all if you stay around there. With that said, Tesla is coming out with a CCS2 adapter so you can charge up with third party fast chargers. I anticipate that Canadian tire will have chargers on all their gas stations along the 401 which will be a game changer for people along the 401. Is this an investment opportunity?
> 
> Oh yeah, two weeks after I paid for the car the price dropped $2000. I called in and they gave me the discount since at that time they had a 7 day refund policy!!


Awesome info. Thanks. That app sounds like what I need to run a couple of scenarios.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> Of course, recycled cooking oil using fossil fuels no doubt to process it from waste products. At some level, fossil fuel is in that chain.


Fossil fuels were used in mining the minerals that were used to make the cars, or the plant that processed the cooking oil into biodiesel. Pointless gotchaism.


----------



## andrewf

Eder said:


> The hypocrisy makes the whole shindig a joke, but we're not supposed to laugh?
> The capper is that if true the gen sets running on vegetable oil produce higher amounts of CO2 than running on diesel.


Fossil CO2 is the problem. All the CO2 from vegetable oil originally came from the atmosphere within the previous year or two.


----------



## andrewf

Covariance said:


> Does anyone have a link or tool to calculate the cost “to fuel” an EV that is known to be accurate? I’m looking for an empirical calculation not theory. Let’s say for a Model 3 or Y? For comparison I know the mileage I get with my car in highway use. So this is a real world, empirical metric I can use to calculate real world cost (with the other inputs being distance and price /litre of gas).
> Also, I assume there is parasitic loss while the EV is parked and any estimate again for the same models.
> There are a lot of claims that the running cost of EV is lower (with scant details) and I just want to run my own numbers and see what the real difference for me would be. Thanks.


There is tonnes of data available on consumption for Tesla.


agent99 said:


> No. Electricity costs more than double that in Ontario. That might be close to the TOU base cost/kwh, but there are several charges on top of that. I checked and the cost of our off-peak electricity is about 17.5c/kwh wwhen delivery charges, regulatory charges, HST and rebates are accounted for.


I think this is wrong. You can't just divide your bill by your consumption, some of the bill is fixed charge. Some of delivery is variable and some of it is fixed.


----------



## andrewf

Covariance said:


> Thanks for this. Are people saying these MPGe metrics are realistic and backed up with empirical data?


It might be off by 20%, for instance. But then EPA range for gas cars also tends to be optimistic.


----------



## andrewf

doctrine said:


> It is lower today, but there is no guarantee it will be that way for long. In Europe, power rates are surging because of fossil fuel shortages, at a rate multiple times faster than increases in gasoline/diesel. Natural gas is well above $200 a barrel equivalent, in some places hitting $250 a barrel. Electric cars have historically been about 3 times cheaper, but that is when natural gas was $25 a barrel and oil was $60. When oil is $80 and natural gas is $225-250 and that goes into the power rates, it will change the equation. Heck, even if you signed a sweet fixed price contract for electricity in Europe, your provider may have already gone bankrupt leaving you fully exposed.
> 
> For now though, status quo and enjoy your low electricity in North America and low electric charging costs, thanks to our abundant fossil fuel production.


If electricity gets that expensive, expect many people to invest in solar panels. Renewables are a cap on fossil fuel prices. If fossil fuels become expensive, in the long term they will be substituted by renewables.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> Of course, pumped storage has been in operation at Niagara for a very long time. I worked for Ontario Hydro for 10 years and understood system ops. Try building a greenfield facility like that today. There are anecdotes everywhere for whatever case you want to make. A material amount of energy storage to offset solar and wind deficiencies is not an economic solution in most jurisdictions today.
> 
> Until such time that alternatives become cost competitive and/or natural gas/LNG becomes considerably more expensive. nat gas fired generation will continue to be built, perhaps for 20+ more years. Only time will tell. Ideologically focused people need to come to terms with that on a real life basis.


Not pumped hydro, but similar. Hydrostor is a Canadian company with a project in Goderich to store energy as compressed air.





__





Goderich A-CAES Facility – Hydrostor







www.hydrostor.ca


----------



## andrewf

Covariance said:


> Your sentiments reflect everyone in my circle that has bought one. People love them.
> 
> My use case is a difficult one as I have a mix of frequent local and the occasional (monthly) 600km drives
> 
> May I ask which model you have and real world range, electricity consumption? thanks


600 km drives are no problem if there are Tesla Superchargers along the route. You could do it with one longer (40 min) or two brief (15 min) charging stops. Many people make a big deal of this, but you don't have to stay with the car while charging--you can use the restroom and grab a coffee and the car would be ready to go. You can see where chargers are located on their website. They have pretty good coverage of major highways in Canada, and plan to add chargers on more secondary routes in the next year or so.


----------



## m3s

cliffsecord said:


> I anticipate that Canadian tire will have chargers on all their gas stations along the 401 which will be a game changer for people along the 401. Is this an investment opportunity?


This is like the 'horseless carriage" scenario. Why put chargers at "gas stations" when they could be at the store/restaurant parking lot

Seems like a no-brainer way to bring in more "captive" customers. In the US I see them at hotels and shopping centers more than gas stations


----------



## andrewf

Gas stations are trying to remain relevant. Really, there will be far fewer of them, and the ones that survive will be larger, more like convenience stores/quick serve restaurants. Most charging will be at home, then at businesses like malls, grocery stores, gyms, etc. where people spend 30-60 minutes on a regular basis.


----------



## m3s

If I'm stopping for 1hr recharge I don't want to be on the side of the highway with a few fast food options

10min stop for gas on the 401 can be replaced by 1hr stop at a good restaurant. Places like movie theaters, gyms, malls, restaurants should be installing chargers. What else would you like while taking a 1hr break from the road?

Maybe the failing mails and movie theatres can rebrand into Tesla supercharger paradises


----------



## cliffsecord

m3s said:


> This is like the 'horseless carriage" scenario. Why put chargers at "gas stations" when they could be at the store/restaurant parking lot
> 
> Seems like a no-brainer way to bring in more "captive" customers. In the US I see them at hotels and shopping centers more than gas stations


From personal experience it would be convenient to have roadside stops like at existing gas stations. Getting off and on the highway to go into a town adds extra time. On an eight hour trip with four stops, the time to get off the highway into a town really adds up. Plus, it will really reduce range anxiety when there are stops every 75 km. Also, as I found out on my last trip, malls are closed on holidays.

Your description of chargers at malls and hotels are usually destination chargers where it takes about 10 hours to fully charge and yes they produce captive customers. The chargers along the highway would be fast chargers where it would take less than an hour to fully charge up and usually you would only be 30 min or less and will be open 24/7 - Teslas charge the fastest from 10% to 80% at about 30 min while the last 20% will take another 30 min. Destination chargers and fast chargers serve two different usages.


----------



## m3s

Tesla built some fancy "gas stations" in Germany but it sounds like they won't build more. Who knows

Malls don't have to be malls, they don't have to close, and they don't have to be slow destination chargers. I mean stop comparing the car to a horse carriage and think of the new possibilities here

You don't want to spend 10 mins driving to a gas station that takes 5 mins to refill. Recharging takes more time so you might rather spend the 10 mins to have something better to do


----------



## AltaRed

Still wouldn't go more than 300m off the highway for a charge if I am on an extended highway trip. Towns and cities just get in the way of getting to the destination. 

I see the rise of spaced super stations, not unlike truck stops that have a range of facilities to entertain/comfort folk while they charge up. The new one I recently experienced near Hope was a combination truck stop with showers, entertainment, lounge area, picnic area, sit down restaurant with a large truck filling area, a dozen or so gas pumps and maybe 10? EV chargers. Could even include a childrent's playground and arcade, etc. That is the sort of thing I envision along major highways.


----------



## bgc_fan

AltaRed said:


> Still wouldn't go more than 300m off the highway for a charge if I am on an extended highway trip. Towns and cities just get in the way of getting to the destination.
> 
> I see the rise of spaced super stations, not unlike truck stops that have a range of facilities to entertain/comfort folk while they charge up. The new one I recently experienced near Hope was a combination truck stop with showers, entertainment, lounge area, picnic area, sit down restaurant with a large truck filling area, a dozen or so gas pumps and maybe 10? EV chargers. Could even include a childrent's playground and arcade, etc. That is the sort of thing I envision along major highways.


The 401 in Ontario have Onroute stops which have that sort of thing. They have them every 80 km or so. They don't have showers, or entertainment areas, but have the other amenities you mention.

They also have Canadian Tire gas stations, and considering that Canadian Tire is working on adding EV chargers at their stores, I could see them adding them at On route.


----------



## AltaRed

Just need to add more convenience, comfort and better dining for longer EV type stops. e.g. roadhouses. Fast food on its own doesn't cut it. 

I am sure it will come and hopeful outfits like Alimentation Couche-Tard take this on.


----------



## bgc_fan

AltaRed said:


> Just need to add more convenience, comfort and better dining for longer EV type stops. e.g. roadhouses. Fast food on its own doesn't cut it.
> 
> I am sure it will come and hopeful outfits like Alimentation Couche-Tard take this on.


I imagine what On route offers will fit the requirements for 70-80% of most people.
I don't know what type of entertainment you'd expect, but even though it's a little off the highway, how is something like the Big Apple? Basically a tourist attraction along the highway that has expanded quite a bit from the old days of having a novelty big apple along the highway. The Big Apple

Edit: Should mention that they have 2 chargers, one Tesla, one generic.


----------



## m3s

bgc_fan said:


> Edit: Should mention that they have 2 chargers, one Tesla, one generic.


Any business with half a brain should consider adding these.

Can't see it being hard compared to a gas station. They don't take up more space than parking


----------



## m3s

Tesla is about to dwarf previous disruptions










SpaceX is also far bigger than people realize


----------



## bgc_fan

m3s said:


> Any business with half a brain should consider adding these.
> 
> Can't see it being hard compared to a gas station. They don't take up more space than parking


Pretty much. Our local strip mall actually installed a pair of EV chargers and did see them in use. Traveled to Toronto and the hotel that I was at had a dozen or more EV chargers, half Tesla, the other generic. Destination charging can be as big a sell as free Wifi was when hotels started offering that.


----------



## AltaRed

Hotels are so obvious it shouldn't even be a thought. It is what I'd do. Similar for supermarkets perhaps since the average shopping trip is 20-40 minutes long.

Malls...not so much. Perhaps tainted for my disdain/hate for malls of any sort, strip and otherwise.


----------



## m3s

AltaRed said:


> Malls...not so much. Perhaps tainted for my disdain/hate for malls of any sort, strip and otherwise.


I mean the mall parking lots and building could be rebranded into a place to spend an hour and recharge

Not the boomer malls already abandoned across the US - eyesores with the addicts and homeless

Come to think of it probably not. Maybe just to recharge the modern drug dealers' EV


----------



## sags

When there is an accident or a snow storm on the traffic packed 400 series highways, the traffic can be stopped for hours.

What happens when someone is driving an EV in the middle of a freezing cold snow storm and stranded on the highway for hours ?

Can they heat their vehicle while they wait ? Will they make it to the next EV chargers and miles of backed up traffic also need a charge.

I think there are problems that haven't been fully thought out yet.

As evidenced by the pandemic supply chain shortages, we aren't very good at planning ahead.









Buying an Electric Car for a Cold Climate? Double Down on Range.


Consumer Reports shares information on buying an electric car for a cold climate. It’s no secret that electric vehicles suffer loss of range in cold weather. But how much decline should owners expect?



www.consumerreports.org


----------



## sags

Tesla will need to quickly address the mounting quality issues, as it will soon have a lot of competition from other manufacturers.

The first to market advantage only goes so far with consumers.









The 2021 Model Y Is the Least Reliable Tesla According To Consumer Reports


Tesla typically generates glowing reviews, but that's not even close to what happened with the 2021 Tesla Model Y. A passing glance at the vehicle's




www.motorbiscuit.com


----------



## Mortgage u/w

sags said:


> When there is an accident or a snow storm on the traffic packed 400 series highways, the traffic can be stopped for hours.
> 
> What happens when someone is driving an EV in the middle of a freezing cold snow storm and stranded on the highway for hours ?
> 
> Can they heat their vehicle while they wait ? Will they make it to the next EV chargers and miles of backed up traffic also need a charge.
> 
> I think there are problems that haven't been fully thought out yet.
> 
> As evidenced by the pandemic supply chain shortages, we aren't very good at planning ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buying an Electric Car for a Cold Climate? Double Down on Range.
> 
> 
> Consumer Reports shares information on buying an electric car for a cold climate. It’s no secret that electric vehicles suffer loss of range in cold weather. But how much decline should owners expect?
> 
> 
> 
> www.consumerreports.org


the risk is the same if your low on gas and stranded for hours.


----------



## agent99

Mortgage u/w said:


> the risk is the same if your low on gas and stranded for hours.


An ICE uses about 1/2 gallon per hour st idle. So 2 gal if stuck for 4hrs with engine running. It would likely put out more heat than needed, so that number would likely be lower if engine was not run continuously. Even on reserve, cars would normally have more than 2gal. With a full tank, car could perhaps idle for 40hrs.

I have no idea how much battery power the Tesla would use to heat the car for 4 hrs. Perhaps if charge was low (equivalent to gas car being on reserve) and battery efficiency low due to temperatures, you might have a bigger problem than the gas driven car?

Regardless, the risk is not the same - apples and oranges.


----------



## off.by.10

agent99 said:


> An ICE uses about 1/2 gallon per hour st idle. So 2 gal if stuck for 4hrs with engine running. It would likely put out more heat than needed, so that number would likely be lower if engine was not run continuously. Even on reserve, cars would normally have more than 2gal. With a full tank, car could perhaps idle for 40hrs.
> 
> I have no idea how much battery power the Tesla would use to heat the car for 4 hrs. Perhaps if charge was low (equivalent to gas car being on reserve) and battery efficiency low due to temperatures, you might have a bigger problem than the gas driven car?
> 
> Regardless, the risk is not the same - apples and oranges.


Figure about 1 kW to maintain decent temperature in a modern car with a heat pump and your typical EV with a 60 kWh battery should be able to do it for two days straight.

Or even better, use the heated seats instead and you will die of thirst before you freeze.

So really no more a danger than an ICE car. I could make a similarly stupid argument that you can die of CO poisoning if you get stuck in a snow storm in an ICE car. I doubt it happens much either.


----------



## Eder

I didn't buy the hybrid Wrangler as in the middle of no where everyone can spare some gas...not true for diesel or kw's. As for a sedan... who cares...vehicles are supposed to be fun just like horses and women.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

agent99 said:


> An ICE uses about 1/2 gallon per hour st idle. So 2 gal if stuck for 4hrs with engine running. It would likely put out more heat than needed, so that number would likely be lower if engine was not run continuously. Even on reserve, cars would normally have more than 2gal. With a full tank, car could perhaps idle for 40hrs.
> 
> I have no idea how much battery power the Tesla would use to heat the car for 4 hrs. Perhaps if charge was low (equivalent to gas car being on reserve) and battery efficiency low due to temperatures, you might have a bigger problem than the gas driven car?
> 
> Regardless, the risk is not the same - apples and oranges.


so you don’t know what an EV consumes but decided to conclude that the risk is not the same??


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> When there is an accident or a snow storm on the traffic packed 400 series highways, the traffic can be stopped for hours.
> 
> What happens when someone is driving an EV in the middle of a freezing cold snow storm and stranded on the highway for hours ?
> 
> Can they heat their vehicle while they wait ? Will they make it to the next EV chargers and miles of backed up traffic also need a charge.
> 
> I think there are problems that haven't been fully thought out yet.


US Police are interested in EVs like the Cybertruck and one of the reasons is that it is more efficient for sitting around like cops do most of the time. Idling a gas engine for your electronics and climate is like using a generator to power your house sags

They do need to test for low temperatures though. Lithium batteries need to keep itself warm. Logistical problems always exist for everything you just don't remember how life was before there was a gas station built on every corner

Construction, military, agriculture etc all had to develop ways to operate without service stations sags. If you open your mind it's just a new logistics problem to solve. We already have electricity nearly everywhere humans live which is a logistical feat itself

We have fuel trucks and fuel bowsers. Tesla already has mobile charging trailers. If we can land rockets now we can probably charge a car on the side of the road too


----------



## agent99

Mortgage u/w said:


> so you don’t know what an EV consumes but decided to conclude that the risk is not the same??


Exactly - and based on plain logic. They are two completely different technologies. Very minute chance risk would be the same in both cases.

Gasoline stored in a fuel tank always contains the same amount of energy regardless of temperature. The engine will idle for near to same time regardless of outside temperature. The battery in an EV in subzero conditions loses as much as 50% of it's available energy (similar to draining 1/2 the gas from fuel tank)

Heat pumps are a good idea (we use one to heat our home), but as temperatures drop they become less and less effective. At -20C, even the most efficient type (unlikely in a car) use same amount of energy with or without heat pump.

If in both cases, car became stuck when fuel or battery reserve was low we have a new difference. Fuel can be brought to the stranded car in jerry cans or even siphoned from another car. I don't know what EVs would do? Perhaps towed or pushed to side until a generator could gain access?

Again - different technologies with different risks.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

agent99 said:


> Exactly - and based on plain logic. They are two completely different technologies. Very minute chance risk would be the same in both cases.
> 
> Gasoline stored in a fuel tank always contains the same amount of energy regardless of temperature. The engine will idle for near to same time regardless of outside temperature. The battery in an EV in subzero conditions loses as much as 50% of it's available energy (similar to draining 1/2 the gas from fuel tank)
> 
> Heat pumps are a good idea (we use one to heat our home), but as temperatures drop they become less and less effective. At -20C, even the most efficient type (unlikely in a car) use same amount of energy with or without heat pump.
> 
> If in both cases, car became stuck when fuel or battery reserve was low we have a new difference. Fuel can be brought to the stranded car in jerry cans or even siphoned from another car. I don't know what EVs would do? Perhaps towed or pushed to side until a generator could gain access?
> 
> Again - different technologies with different risks.


Its not plain logic. Its your assumption that gas will have an advantage over batteries.

In any case, the scenario is such a rare situation that should not affect your decision. That's like choosing a gas car with the largest gas reserve for those 'just in case' situations.

The last time I saw a huge traffic jam, a winter storm swept in and halted a whole highway section. People were stranded for over 12 hours. Everyone ran out of gas and needed to be evacuated. Cars were snowed in, took 3 days for the cars to get towed out and restore the highway. Battery or gas, you'd be out of luck.


----------



## agent99

Mortgage u/w said:


> Its not plain logic. Its your assumption that gas will have an advantage over batteries.


It is plain logic, but seems you are so biased toward your EV that you just can't see it. As a result, hard to have a meaningful discussion. 

Nothing wrong with being enthusiastic about your EV, but don't treat it like religion and try and convert the masses. Or, if you can't help yourself, try and do it in a more friendly way. 

Discussion ends for me.


----------



## Eder

Lots of fan boys in this club. One even mentions some CO2 emissions are less harmful to the environment than other CO2 lol.


----------



## AltaRed

The key is to stop engaging with them.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

agent99 said:


> It is plain logic, but seems you are so biased toward your EV that you just can't see it. As a result, hard to have a meaningful discussion.
> 
> Nothing wrong with being enthusiastic about your EV, but don't treat it like religion and try and convert the masses. Or, if you can't help yourself, try and do it in a more friendly way.
> 
> Discussion ends for me.


I own both EV and ICE vehicles so I’m not biased on neither. Unless you’ve experienced both, or if you had some substantial data to support your claim, then yes, discussion is meaningless.

you’re trying to prove EV is not sustainable in extreme circumstances. I’m trying to understand your claim. I’m also advising that both gas and battery will be at a disadvantage under extreme circumstances. You seem to think otherwise.

battery might not be your thing and that’s ok. I don’t need to convert you or anyone for that matter. Just trying to understand your claim and provide some insight.


----------



## AltaRed

Agent99 gave a good example of a vehicle stranded for some reason, e.g. side of a highway for a long period where it is much easier to put in a jerry can of gas or siphon as the case may be, than having to hail a generator to power up a battery. The same thing applies in the boondocks where an ICE vehicle out of gas in the wilderness can be rescued with just a 4 litre jug of gasoline. There clearly is more flexibility with an ICE in a number of situations. EV supporters need to be objective in their comments in situation such as these.

There is no question there are some major environmental and practical advantages to EVs, such as ridding our cities of tailpipe pollutants, ridding ourselves of engine lubricating oil, the elimination of hazardous gasoline tankers, lower maintenance, etc. and there is little doubt in my mind EVs could be at least 50% of sales by 2030, and should. They, however, also have their disadvantages including recycling of battery packs at some point in their life. Let's just be realistic/objective about it.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

I also gave a good example where a snow storm stranded hundreds of vehicles. A gas-can didn’t solve their problem. My point is these are extreme and specific circumstances. I find it insignificant even if a gas car may have an advantage as per your example. There will always be a pro and con to both. Need to look at the bigger picture.


----------



## AltaRed

Mortgage u/w said:


> I also gave a good example where a snow storm stranded hundreds of vehicles. A gas-can didn’t solve their problem. My point is these are extreme and specific circumstances. I find it insignificant even if a gas car may have an advantage as per your example. There will always be a pro and con to both. Need to look at the bigger picture.


Not necessarily a good example. Those ICEs that went into that stranded situation with a full tank can siphon for others. You are not thinking big picture enough. Touche!


----------



## Mortgage u/w

AltaRed said:


> Not necessarily a good example. Those ICEs that went into that stranded situation with a full tank can siphon for others. You are not thinking big picture enough. Touche!


A stranded EV on a full charge could last several days in a similar situation. 
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## AltaRed

We are indeed wasting our time, or I am at least wasting mine.


----------



## leoc2

Instead of a syphon hose to help another ICE car...I can envision a cable to share your battery power with another BEV in need.


----------



## Benting

Forget about EV, what about 'Blackfly' or 'flying EV'. Won't mind have one
Opener’s Blackfly Electric Aircraft Will Cost the Same as a Luxe SUV – Robb Report


----------



## agent99

Benting said:


> Forget about EV, what about 'Blackfly' or 'flying EV'. Won't mind have one
> Opener’s Blackfly Electric Aircraft Will Cost the Same as a Luxe SUV – Robb Report


Wonder if that thing can glide and land safely if it runs out of power? Sort of like the Gimli Glider.


----------



## andrewf

Eder said:


> Lots of fan boys in this club. One even mentions some CO2 emissions are less harmful to the environment than other CO2 lol.


The CO2 emissions associated with EV manufacturing are 'less harmful' than the point emissions from ICE vehicles, because mining and manufacturing emissions are not 10 ft in front of you, spewing particulate emissions and nitrous oxides that cause smog in your city.


----------



## Plugging Along

We are looking for a new vehicle for next year. My spouse thinks we should do an EV, I am not so confident and am leaning towards a hybrid. I know the EV is fine for most of our driving and short trips. However, I am very interested hearing from those that have experience with an EV how it would fair on our longer trips.

The two scenarios which I am most concerned about:
1. Driving to our cabin. It's just over a 3 hour drive, through the mountains with no service for anything for parts of it. I don't want to be making short little charging stops and am concerned when their are delays. We did run out of gas once due to an emergency closure. Someone brought the jerry can's and managed to get through. Wondering what that would be like if there aren't alot of EV's. Most of the people on that road drive our gas guzzling SUV's and trucks. 

2. I am a Girl Guides leader and take the vehicle to literally the middle of no where for kids' camps on the weekend. The furthest/longest is about 1.5 hours from the main highway through gravel or dirt roads to the middle of freaking no where. There is no electricity or anywhere to stop in the last part, and sometimes we do turn on our vehicles to warm up a little over night. The longest the trip would be is a Thursday night to Sunday. We have been in all weather, so I don't rule out snow. 

I wonder how an electric vehicle would do in these situations. Especially the 2nd one. It seems extreme, but that is the reality of what happens at a least a couple of times a year (during non covid).


----------



## agent99

Sounds like you would need to take a generator with you. Which would make the EV a pseudo hybrid! Based on intended use, I would get a conventional gas engine vehicle.


----------



## off.by.10

Plugging Along said:


> I wonder how an electric vehicle would do in these situations. Especially the 2nd one. It seems extreme, but that is the reality of what happens at a least a couple of times a year (during non covid).


I honestly wouldn't plan a 3 hour drive in an EV away from civilization. Some can do it but it just needs to get too cold and they won't.

There's nearly no downside to a hybrid vs conventional gas powered. You can think of them as just more efficient engines. Definitely worth it. A plug-in hybrid might be worth it if you do a lot of short trips too. Probably depends on the subventions available where you are and if the electricity is any cleaner than burning gas.


----------



## Spudd

Plugging Along said:


> We are looking for a new vehicle for next year. My spouse thinks we should do an EV, I am not so confident and am leaning towards a hybrid. I know the EV is fine for most of our driving and short trips. However, I am very interested hearing from those that have experience with an EV how it would fair on our longer trips.
> 
> (snip)
> 
> I wonder how an electric vehicle would do in these situations. Especially the 2nd one. It seems extreme, but that is the reality of what happens at a least a couple of times a year (during non covid).


I wouldn't get a pure EV given these situations. A plug-in hybrid might be good if you also do a lot of driving around town. My PHEV (plug-in hybrid) goes 40-50km on a charge (lower end in winter, higher in summer), which is fine for my around-town driving. Then I can use the gas engine as well if I want to go farther. I like the flexibility.


----------



## andrewf

Living in southern Ontario, I can't fathom driving 3 hours away from civilization. You need to go as far north as Sudbury to be over an hour from a large town.


----------



## AltaRed

I think PA is in AB. There are many places in the west where one can be hours away from civilization with no services


----------



## agent99

If you head West in Ontario, you won't find many places in Northern Ontario you could charge unless you stick to the Trans Canada highway. Try driving from North Bay to Nipigon, via Kapuskasing and Geraldton. About 1000km. Two motels have low capacity charging stations for you if you choose to stay there. Even Sudbury to Timmins is about 300km and when you get there, no place to recharge your Tesla. Northern Ontario has many towns, but very few charging stations. Not a place to own an EV and not hard at all to get 3 hrs from civilization! 4WD ICE pickups rule up there (and even here in South outside of big cities) and won't go away any time soon, it seems!


----------



## bgc_fan

agent99 said:


> If you head West in Ontario, you won't find many places in Northern Ontario you could charge unless you stick to the Trans Canada highway. Try driving from North Bay to Nipigon, via Kapuskasing and Geraldton. About 1000km. Two motels have low capacity charging stations for you if you choose to stay there. Even Sudbury to Timmins is about 300km and when you get there, no place to recharge your Tesla. Northern Ontario has many towns, but very few charging stations. Not a place to own an EV and not hard at all to get 3 hrs from civilization! 4WD ICE pickups rule up there (and even here in South outside of big cities) and won't go away any time soon, it seems!


EVs aren't going to be for everyone, but for most people who live in urban areas, they'll meet their demands. For long road trips? It depends where you are going. But I wouldn't look at the Tesla supercharger map, rather this site which is more comprehensive. Find every public charging station for electric cars | ChargeHub

Edit: Geraldton, Nipigon have fast chargers. Kapuskasing has something at a dealership (it looks like), Timmins has a Canadian Tire fast charger.


----------



## Mechanic

There are a few proponents of EV's near me. They make posts on the local social media about how they save money on fuel and are not polluting the environment but, they go quiet when there is any talk about all the wood they are burning for heat in our damp winter climate.


----------



## cliffsecord

Mechanic said:


> There are a few proponents of EV's near me. They make posts on the local social media about how they save money on fuel and are not polluting the environment but, they go quiet when there is any talk about all the wood they are burning for heat in our damp winter climate.


I used to think like that but I've come to understand that as long as we do something lessto harm the environment it's still better. The key is many small steps to move forward. It'll take generations for us to change societal habits.

Going back to PA's question. bgc_fan got it right that EVs aren't for everyone, but there is the argument that you can rent a ICE car for those few times that you need to be in the middle of nowhere. It all depends on how much you drive in areas that do have chargers.

As for PHEV, just remember that they are actually worse on gas mileage on the highway than a pure hybrid. This is because after the battery runs out, it's just deadweight that the ICE portion has to lug around. Now if you use the battery portion 90% of the time then you still win in terms of fuel costs. The PHEV that most people are clamoring for is the RAV 4 Prime which will have about 100 km range (60 km in the winter).


----------



## dotnet_nerd

Mechanic said:


> ...they go quiet when there is any talk about all the wood they are burning for heat in our damp winter climate.


Burning wood is carbon-neutral. The trees absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. Burning releases it back again.

The tree will otherwise die and rot, releasing the CO2 regardless. You might as well extract some BTUs.


----------



## Plugging Along

Spudd said:


> I wouldn't get a pure EV given these situations. A plug-in hybrid might be good if you also do a lot of driving around town. My PHEV (plug-in hybrid) goes 40-50km on a charge (lower end in winter, higher in summer), which is fine for my around-town driving. Then I can use the gas engine as well if I want to go farther. I like the flexibility.


I do primarily driving around town, usually for longer periods (up to 200 max, usually around 100km) that's to get my kids to and from their many activities, usually without stopping or a break. 

I like the idea of a plug in hybrid. Just to confirm, if one goes more than 50km, the car then uses gas until you re charge? How long for a recharge? Is there such a thing as a quick recharge? I am often driving between kids places across town, so am early waiting for the next pick up. It's not enough time for me to go home. 



agent99 said:


> Sounds like you would need to take a generator with you. Which would make the EV a pseudo hybrid! Based on intended use, I would get a conventional gas engine vehicle.


Definitely will not be taking a generator. With all the camping gear for unit, I barely have room for a Gerry can. The amount of times I am in these more extremely remote areas is only a couple of times of year (less during COVID)



off.by.10 said:


> I honestly wouldn't plan a 3 hour drive in an EV away from civilization. Some can do it but it just needs to get too cold and they won't.
> 
> There's nearly no downside to a hybrid vs conventional gas powered. You can think of them as just more efficient engines. Definitely worth it. A plug-in hybrid might be worth it if you do a lot of short trips too. Probably depends on the subventions available where you are and if the electricity is any cleaner than burning gas.


We generally do a lot of short trips, but know we can be off the beaten track alot. I do really like the idea of the hybrid. How different is hybrid vs. a plug in hybrid.


----------



## Plugging Along

andrewf said:


> Living in southern Ontario, I can't fathom driving 3 hours away from civilization. You need to go as far north as Sudbury to be over an hour from a large town.


In AB and we go to BC a lot too. When I said 3 hours, I meant that alot of places I go could be an 1.5 hour in and then an 1.5 out before I could access a charging station. It tends to be that I am on more gravel roads and dirt roads than I would like. It's not far in distance, but the drive is slow because of the road conditions. I assumed electric cars have a drain even when idling or going slow.


----------



## m3s

EVs are much less compelling in Canada

Lithium ion doesn't like cold at all. Regenerative braking needs to be off on cold/slippery roads. And the charging infrastructure lags far behind and will only get worse compared to other countries

Canadian are quickly becoming modern day luddites


----------



## zinfit

like_to_retire said:


> Yes, and this applies for a lot of people who live in a downtown area where they are actually parking on the street with a pass.
> 
> And in another way it would also be a challenge for apartment buildings to offer charging for each unit. Imagine the expensive job to run wiring to every underground parking spot and have the usage charged to each renter.
> 
> It will be a long time before gas machines go out of use.
> 
> I would never buy a hybrid myself. They're far too complex and would require increased maintenance. You have the entire system of both an EV and an ICE and then the switching between the two. I would just choose one system and be done with it.
> 
> ltr


Not true the Toyota Pruis and other Toyota hybrids are their most reliable vehicles.The Toyota dealer told me that almost all original Priuses are still on the road and many have more then a million kilometers on them.


----------



## AltaRed

dotnet_nerd said:


> Burning wood is carbon-neutral. The trees absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. Burning releases it back again.
> 
> The tree will otherwise die and rot, releasing the CO2 regardless. You might as well extract some BTUs.


Better yet. Sequester that carbon forever by harvesting the trees into lumber before they die and rot and release their carbon back into the atmosphere. Wood burning is about the most toxic thing one can do outside of burning coal (incomplete combustion), regardless of the so called efficiency of the newer wood stoves. It is absolutely choking in some of the narrow valleys of BC. Wood burning is banned in most urban areas and should be banned virtually everywhere (some isolated communities aside where propane deliveries are not practical).


----------



## Spudd

Plugging Along said:


> I do primarily driving around town, usually for longer periods (up to 200 max, usually around 100km) that's to get my kids to and from their many activities, usually without stopping or a break.
> 
> I like the idea of a plug in hybrid. Just to confirm, if one goes more than 50km, the car then uses gas until you re charge? How long for a recharge? Is there such a thing as a quick recharge? I am often driving between kids places across town, so am early waiting for the next pick up. It's not enough time for me to go home.


I have the Prius Prime, so I'll be talking about that one since I'm familiar with it. I haven't investigated others but I imagine they're probably similar.

With my car, yes, once you run out of battery then it switches to hybrid mode and acts like a regular Prius hybrid. It's all automatic, you don't have to do anything. You can also choose to manually switch to hybrid mode if you want - I will do this if I'm driving to my dad's house. He lives 300km away, so I drive in EV mode until I get to the highway, then I switch to hybrid. Once I get off the highway, or a little before, I switch back to EV with the aim of exhausting the battery by the time I arrive at his door. City driving with stop and go is better for battery preservation than highway driving, so by doing it that way, I wring more kilometers of EV driving out of it. 

It takes 6 hours to fully recharge from a standard house plug, or 2 hours and 10 minutes to recharge from a level 2 charger. If there's a public charger near your kids' activities, you might be able to get some juice while they play soccer or whatever. But if not, you can just go in hybrid mode.

I don't think the person who posted that PHEVs get worse mileage in hybrid mode than normal hybrids is right. They're not just lugging the battery around, they're using it as a normal hybrid would use theirs. The only difference is the battery is bigger/heavier. This site seems to think that it's the same, at least for Prius vs Prius Prime.


----------



## cliffsecord

Not saying there is a big difference, but there is a slight one. Of course this is all specs and itt all depends on how you drive.

Ioniq Hybrid = 59 MPG combined
Ioniq PHEV = 52 MPG combined

Rav 4 Hybrid = 40 MPG combined
Rav 4 Prime = 38 MPG combined


----------



## agent99

dotnet_nerd said:


> Burning wood is carbon-neutral. The trees absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. Burning releases it back again.
> 
> The tree will otherwise die and rot, releasing the CO2 regardless. You might as well extract some BTUs.


Seems to make sense, but it's much more complicated than that. This article covers some of the negatives of burning wood/biomass. 

Typical wood stoves in homes are often quite inefficient. They produce a lot more than CO2. In addition to what you see (particulates in the form of smoke), a lot of other undesirable products. This article lists them.

As this describes, in BC they have a program to assist owners in swapping their inefficient wood stoves for heat pumps.

We used to burn wood, but eliminated the wood stove about 10 years ago when we installed a central heat pump.


----------



## like_to_retire

I remember back in 2018 that Montreal banned wood burning fireplaces.

ltr


----------



## like_to_retire

dotnet_nerd said:


> It's like comparing a modern gas engine with a 1920's Model T.


Unfortunately for every modern gas engine like you there are 10,000 1920's Model T's.

ltr


----------



## AltaRed

like_to_retire said:


> Unfortunately for every modern gas engine like you there are 10,000 1920's Model T's.
> 
> ltr


I agree the post #507 argument holds no water given the probabilities of usage. Ban for the broader good.


----------



## andrewf

agent99 said:


> If you head West in Ontario, you won't find many places in Northern Ontario you could charge unless you stick to the Trans Canada highway. Try driving from North Bay to Nipigon, via Kapuskasing and Geraldton. About 1000km. Two motels have low capacity charging stations for you if you choose to stay there. Even Sudbury to Timmins is about 300km and when you get there, no place to recharge your Tesla. Northern Ontario has many towns, but very few charging stations. Not a place to own an EV and not hard at all to get 3 hrs from civilization! 4WD ICE pickups rule up there (and even here in South outside of big cities) and won't go away any time soon, it seems!


Yes, but then no one goes there. People raise these edge cases as some kind of proof EVs won't eat the world. That is just denial.


----------



## andrewf

Plugging Along said:


> In AB and we go to BC a lot too. When I said 3 hours, I meant that alot of places I go could be an 1.5 hour in and then an 1.5 out before I could access a charging station. It tends to be that I am on more gravel roads and dirt roads than I would like. It's not far in distance, but the drive is slow because of the road conditions. I assumed electric cars have a drain even when idling or going slow.


EVs actually like low speed driving more than highway. I would not recommend an EV for this kind of trip, but it seems rather exceptional. Most people don't do this kind of thing, and even those that do mostly do it a handful of times a year.


----------



## andrewf

bgc_fan said:


> EVs aren't going to be for everyone, but for most people who live in urban areas, they'll meet their demands. For long road trips? It depends where you are going. But I wouldn't look at the Tesla supercharger map, rather this site which is more comprehensive. Find every public charging station for electric cars | ChargeHub
> 
> Edit: Geraldton, Nipigon have fast chargers. Kapuskasing has something at a dealership (it looks like), Timmins has a Canadian Tire fast charger.


I would caution against relying on those chargers. Often they are located at businesses that are inaccessible outside of business hours, and frequently are unreliable/out of service. For some reason, it seems like Tesla is the only company that seems capable of providing charging infrastructure that just works.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> Better yet. Sequester that carbon forever by harvesting the trees into lumber before they die and rot and release their carbon back into the atmosphere. Wood burning is about the most toxic thing one can do outside of burning coal (incomplete combustion), regardless of the so called efficiency of the newer wood stoves. It is absolutely choking in some of the narrow valleys of BC. Wood burning is banned in most urban areas and should be banned virtually everywhere (some isolated communities aside where propane deliveries are not practical).


I think most firewood is not from trees that would otherwise be used for timber production. Where I live, most firewood is from trees that need to come down anyway, and would otherwise be left to rot or be burned.

Agreed, wood fire is bad for air quality. Still is carbon neutral.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

Plugging Along said:


> We are looking for a new vehicle for next year. My spouse thinks we should do an EV, I am not so confident and am leaning towards a hybrid. I know the EV is fine for most of our driving and short trips. However, I am very interested hearing from those that have experience with an EV how it would fair on our longer trips.
> 
> The two scenarios which I am most concerned about:
> 1. Driving to our cabin. It's just over a 3 hour drive, through the mountains with no service for anything for parts of it. I don't want to be making short little charging stops and am concerned when their are delays. We did run out of gas once due to an emergency closure. Someone brought the jerry can's and managed to get through. Wondering what that would be like if there aren't alot of EV's. Most of the people on that road drive our gas guzzling SUV's and trucks.
> 
> 2. I am a Girl Guides leader and take the vehicle to literally the middle of no where for kids' camps on the weekend. The furthest/longest is about 1.5 hours from the main highway through gravel or dirt roads to the middle of freaking no where. There is no electricity or anywhere to stop in the last part, and sometimes we do turn on our vehicles to warm up a little over night. The longest the trip would be is a Thursday night to Sunday. We have been in all weather, so I don't rule out snow.
> 
> I wonder how an electric vehicle would do in these situations. Especially the 2nd one. It seems extreme, but that is the reality of what happens at a least a couple of times a year (during non covid).


You will be fine. An EV will never let you run out of ‘juice’. The car will tell you exactly how to get to destination. Might need a pit stop here and there but very doable.

there are lots of charging stations available. As long as there is an outlet, you have energy.

I have a range over 400Kms. If that’s not enough, you could always opt for a longer range but it really depends on how many kms you need on a daily basis.


----------



## Eder

Its just wonderful...good CO2 saves our planet but bad CO2 is setting the Earth on fire you see?
2 legs good 4 legs bad.
20k fools burning jet fuel to the UK hoedown to cut CO2 emissions.
Yep...no worries...we got this!


----------



## agent99

Andrew is showing his ignorance of Ontario. Many people live and work in Northern Ontario and the rails run right through those towns. I usually ignore his comments but thought I should set this straight.


----------



## Plugging Along

Mortgage u/w said:


> You will be fine. An EV will never let you run out of ‘juice’. The car will tell you exactly how to get to destination. Might need a pit stop here and there but very doable.
> 
> there are lots of charging stations available. As long as there is an outlet, you have energy.
> 
> I have a range over 400Kms. If that’s not enough, you could always opt for a longer range but it really depends on how many kms you need on a daily basis.


One of my questions was when there is NO outlet anywhere for 3 hours (1.5 hours each way). How does the EV of juice if you have been driving off a highway, on a gravel or dirt road, or not even a road fo 1.5 hours, Park in rustic land on mountain for up to 3 nights, and drive back out for another 1.5. There are NO pitstops along the way. I know that during this time I described their isnt a single I station. 

i don’t know how the car could tell me how to get to destination when I was on private land with no roads for part of my drive. It was less than 400kms but I would be worried thre is still a battery drain.


----------



## MrMatt

Mortgage u/w said:


> You will be fine. An EV will never let you run out of ‘juice’. The car will tell you exactly how to get to destination. Might need a pit stop here and there but very doable.
> 
> there are lots of charging stations available. As long as there is an outlet, you have energy.
> 
> I have a range over 400Kms. If that’s not enough, you could always opt for a longer range but it really depends on how many kms you need on a daily basis.


I took an uber and he had a 3yr old Kial Soul EV.
He said it had a range of 240km, which is more than enough for a full day of driving uber in town.


I think the range issue is really not a problem for most people, myself I would be fine with an in town EV, and a longer range gas car for when I need it. (ie camping trips)


----------



## m3s

agent99 said:


> Andrew is showing his ignorance of Ontario. Many people live and work in Northern Ontario and the rails run right through those towns. I usually ignore his comments but thought I should set this straight.


They probably would be using horses longer during the switch to "horseless carriages" as well

It's not impossible to build charging stations just like it wasn't impossible to build gas stations. They didn't just always exist because they were there when you were born eh

Some people have no ability to envision change


----------



## andrewf

agent99 said:


> Andrew is showing his ignorance of Ontario. Many people live and work in Northern Ontario and the rails run right through those towns. I usually ignore his comments but thought I should set this straight.


"Many people"


----------



## andrewf

Plugging Along said:


> One of my questions was when there is NO outlet anywhere for 3 hours (1.5 hours each way). How does the EV of juice if you have been driving off a highway, on a gravel or dirt road, or not even a road fo 1.5 hours, Park in rustic land on mountain for up to 3 nights, and drive back out for another 1.5. There are NO pitstops along the way. I know that during this time I described their isnt a single I station.
> 
> i don’t know how the car could tell me how to get to destination when I was on private land with no roads for part of my drive. It was less than 400kms but I would be worried thre is still a battery drain.


It doesn't, but this is a very extreme scenario.


----------



## Retired Peasant

Plugging Along said:


> One of my questions was when there is NO outlet anywhere for 3 hours (1.5 hours each way). How does the EV of juice if you have been driving off a highway, on a gravel or dirt road, or not even a road fo 1.5 hours, Park in rustic land on mountain for up to 3 nights, and drive back out for another 1.5. There are NO pitstops along the way. I know that during this time I described their isnt a single I station.


I think for these few occasions, just rent a suitable vehicle.


----------



## m3s

Eventually someone will make an app for people to offer/locate private rechargers and a method to pay

Hopefully it will use P2P crypto payment by then instead of the traditional x% to the app provider and visa/mc intermediaries


----------



## Mortgage u/w

Plugging Along said:


> One of my questions was when there is NO outlet anywhere for 3 hours (1.5 hours each way). How does the EV of juice if you have been driving off a highway, on a gravel or dirt road, or not even a road fo 1.5 hours, Park in rustic land on mountain for up to 3 nights, and drive back out for another 1.5. There are NO pitstops along the way. I know that during this time I described their isnt a single I station.
> 
> i don’t know how the car could tell me how to get to destination when I was on private land with no roads for part of my drive. It was less than 400kms but I would be worried thre is still a battery drain.


So when you program your destination in your navigation, the car will calculate the energy it will need to get you there. The car takes into consideration and knows your driving habits, temperature, elevation, etc, etc and will provide a fairly precise estimate of the range you will have once you get there. If the car determines it needs additional energy, it will direct you to a charging station - even if it means making a slight detour. It will also tell you how long you need to charge for. 

Unless your whole trip is on 'no-mans-land' where you have no signal or road maps - no reason you will get stuck somewhere. You can.......if you don't listen to your car's directions.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

MrMatt said:


> I took an uber and he had a 3yr old Kial Soul EV.
> He said it had a range of 240km, which is more than enough for a full day of driving uber in town.
> 
> 
> I think the range issue is really not a problem for most people, myself I would be fine with an in town EV, and a longer range gas car for when I need it. (ie camping trips)


Correct. Range really isn't an issue because you don't 'fill-up' an EV like you would a gas car. An EV is always plugged in so you are leaving each morning with a 'full tank of gas' whereas a gas car, you deplete the gas before filling up again.


----------



## like_to_retire

Mortgage u/w said:


> Correct. Range really isn't an issue because you don't 'fill-up' an EV like you would a gas car. An EV is always plugged in so you are leaving each morning with a 'full tank of gas' whereas a gas car, you deplete the gas before filling up again.


Do you leave an EV plugged in all the time when it sits in a driveway? 

I can see that charge cord getting in my way all the time when I'm walking around. I usually drive my gas vehicle about once or maybe twice a week to go shopping and the rest of the time I walk or bike, and so the car just sits there.

This behavior usually results in my gas vehicles requiring a new battery every 2 years - no big deal. Would an EV's battery take similar punishment if it was unplugged while sitting in the driveway after it had been fully charged (so that there wasn't a cord getting in the way)?

ltr


----------



## m3s

Mortgage u/w said:


> The car takes into consideration and knows your driving habits, temperature, elevation, etc, etc and will provide a fairly precise estimate of the range you will have once you get there. If the car determines it needs additional energy, it will direct you to a charging station - even if it means making a slight detour. It will also tell you how long you need to charge for.


Imagine a fleet of EVs that could communicate all this data to refine the calculations


----------



## m3s

like_to_retire said:


> This behavior usually results in my gas vehicles requiring a new battery every 2 years - no big deal. Would an EV's battery take similar punishment if it was unplugged while sitting in the driveway after it had been fully charged (so that there wasn't a cord getting in the way)?


Lithium doesn't like to be stored fully charged especially in heat. They also don't like to be fully drained

Many laptops and phones nowadays have battery optimization that holds them at a level below full charge.

Basically it sounds like you want to store it at 20-80% charge and ideally not in heat/cold



> If you are not using your Tesla for an extended period of time:
> 
> 
> Ensure that your Tesla is plugged in and double check before long bouts of inactivity! *The on-board charging monitor will ensure the battery is kept in a safe SoC state.*
> Do not leave your Tesla at 100% SoC for extended periods. This can accelerate battery degradation.
> If you’ve hit 0% charge while driving, don’t worry too much. *Tesla has designed the battery maintenance monitoring system to save some charge*, even when the battery states 0% to ensure you don’t permanently harm the battery. Just get it charged ASAP.


----------



## Plugging Along

andrewf said:


> It doesn't, but this is a very extreme scenario.


 Extreme or not, it IS MY scenario and it happens enough I have o keep is common scenario for my requirement. I have nothing against eclectic cars and actually one but for MY needs, it doesn’t sound like its going to work.


----------



## cliffsecord

like_to_retire said:


> Do you leave an EV plugged in all the time when it sits in a driveway?
> 
> I can see that charge cord getting in my way all the time when I'm walking around. I usually drive my gas vehicle about once or maybe twice a week to go shopping and the rest of the time I walk or bike, and so the car just sits there.
> 
> This behavior usually results in my gas vehicles requiring a new battery every 2 years - no big deal. Would an EV's battery take similar punishment if it was unplugged while sitting in the driveway after it had been fully charged (so that there wasn't a cord getting in the way)?
> 
> ltr


I have a 24' cord that goes across my driveway which is in the path to the back yard. I thought it would be an annoyance, but I don't find it a problem. When I know people are coming I just unplug it and wind it up. If you really want you can put a "speed bump" which would cover the cord.

If you don't have sentry mode on then battery drain is very low. I've left it unplugged for a few days with no problems.

Tesla says to ABC (always be charging). This allows the car to have full reign on battery maintenance - cool or heat the battery as needed. This is where Tesla is far ahead of everybody and why they have the best guestimate of your range. Tesla also recommends keeping the battery between 20% and 80%...though the new battery for some reason can stay at 100% which effectively increases range. Fun fact, that the Model 3 has a small lead acid battery that when it dies will lock you out of the car and you'll need to get a tow on a flatbed - Tesla is working on warning you about battery condition.

As for charging networks, I've read something about a residential charger that enables public use and payment.

PA, it seems you really want an EV, but your habits won't permit it. If you want one buy a hybrid or rent when you need the range. It sucks, but them's the breaks.


----------



## Plugging Along

Retired Peasant said:


> I think for these few occasions, just rent a suitable vehicle.


I have already ruled renting for three reasons FOR ME

rentals companies actually have a clause that I cannot take out their vehicle in an off road setting. There would be no insurance if there is no damage. Yes, i am considered remote by rental companies
the fact that I donate hundreds of hours a year and donate my own supplies, I do not want to spend an additional couple hundred $ for a rental every time i go to volunteer at camp
I am sometimes asked to come out for my other units at the last minute, I don’t want run around getting a rental and paying money to drive for another camp.

whether I get an EV or not, is whether it can meet my requirements.


----------



## Plugging Along

cliffsecord said:


> PA, it seems you really want an EV, but your habits won't permit it. If you want one buy a hybrid or rent when you need the range. It sucks, but them's the breaks.


I do really want one. However, I will not allow the type of vehicle I drive to determine my activities. I won’t rent as i already mention above . 

it sounds like a hybrid may be a better choice for my next vehicle. When the kids are out, then I will get my electric vehicle. 80% of my driving is for their activities, and I don’t want to be risk getting us stranded. When they are out of the house, I for sure won’t be going to these god foresaken areas.


----------



## m3s

EVs will only get better. There's no rush imo

This is still early adoption especially in Canada


----------



## Mortgage u/w

like_to_retire said:


> Do you leave an EV plugged in all the time when it sits in a driveway?
> 
> I can see that charge cord getting in my way all the time when I'm walking around. I usually drive my gas vehicle about once or maybe twice a week to go shopping and the rest of the time I walk or bike, and so the car just sits there.
> 
> This behavior usually results in my gas vehicles requiring a new battery every 2 years - no big deal. Would an EV's battery take similar punishment if it was unplugged while sitting in the driveway after it had been fully charged (so that there wasn't a cord getting in the way)?
> 
> ltr


It is recommended to stay plugged but not an absolute must. All depends your driving habits. I sometimes keep it charged. Sometimes only once a week.

Lithium batteries should not be charged to 100% nor depleted to 0%. So a rule of thumb is to keep it in the 20%-80% range. You control the charge limit so keeping it plugged does not automatically its charging all the time nor will it surpass your set limit.

Cord does not get in my way. If installing a wall charger, you will strategically place it close to your charging port. You shouldn't be running an extension cable 150 feet across the lawn 😆. Most mobile charging cables are less than 20 feet long.


----------



## sags

When you start narrowing down the population of Canada where an EV vehicle would be practical, it whittles down the market for them considerably.

Rural and remote Canadians, people in urban areas who rent an apartment, townhouse or condo may not have access to convenient charging.

When all the companies are planning on manufacturing EV vehicles, one wonders who their customers will be.

At our age, an EV vehicle is likely never in the cards, except perhaps as a small vehicle to run errands.

China is building EVs for $1200 USD that are becoming more popular.

They are cheap....but they do appear feasible for urban areas. There are lots of reviews of them on Youtube.

Chang LI is a popular Chinese manufacturer.






Various Wholesale Chang Li Electric Car At Multiple Price Levels - Alibaba.com


Choose from a wonderful range of New Energy Vehicles on Alibaba.com and unlock your clean driving potential. Buy from our wholesale assortment of chang li electric car at attractive prices on the site.



www.alibaba.com


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Rural and remote Canadians, people in urban areas who rent an apartment, townhouse or condo may not have access to convenient charging.


Chargers aren't that impossible to build. We built gas stations, roads, and bridges before we could send all the horses to the glue factories

I doubt Chinese EVs have the same safety ratings and regulations or safety tech, or even battery optimization

Tesla can eat GMs lunch faster than you think. US just announced massive incentives for US built EVs. Extra incentive for union built because they need it to compete


----------



## zinfit

I have a 2019 Honda Ridgeline and a 2014 Nissan Maxima. Both are low mileage and trouble free vehicles. I am 76 and we aren't making long trips anymore. Will probably stick with these vehicles and I am not sure if I will ever purchase another vehicle. If I was I would definitely consider this option. Anyone that I know that bought a Tesla is very clear about how superior they are. Since the carbon taxes are increasing every year eventually EVs will become a clear choice. Then there possibility is a Toyota with a hydrogen fuel cell system. They are putting a lot into that technology and it is hard company to bet against.


----------



## sags

If you build the vehicles....the infrastructure will come later ?

Anything can be done, if someone is willing to pay for it.


----------



## Plugging Along

Mortgage u/w said:


> So when you program your destination in your navigation, the car will calculate the energy it will need to get you there. The car takes into consideration and knows your driving habits, temperature, elevation, etc, etc and will provide a fairly precise estimate of the range you will have once you get there. If the car determines it needs additional energy, it will direct you to a charging station - even if it means making a slight detour. It will also tell you how long you need to charge for.
> 
> *Unless your whole trip is on 'no-mans-land' where you have no signal or road maps - no reason you will get stuck somewhere. You can.......if you don't listen to your car's directions.*


This is exactly what I am trying to say. The last 1.5 hours has no navigation, signals, electricity or roads. i was there a few weeks ago and I had to go to the closes secondary hwy for with my gps. There are no stations on that hey to charge, then I had to go to this gravel road which which the last of the cell and navigatio. My phone had no service my gps had me driving on grass. the path I took for the next 45 minutes was some Path to no where. I parked in field avoiding the wildlife poop and checking for bears. Then i had to make the reverse trip back with no signal, navigation, electricity, roads.

based on what you have said, EV is not for me.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> If you build the vehicles....the infrastructure will come later ?
> 
> Anything can be done, if someone is willing to pay for it.


Gas stations are profitable

EV stations can be even more profitable (captive customer)

It's not that hard to imagine


----------



## sags

It only takes a few minutes to put gas in a car and they process hundreds of customers a day.

Where are hundreds of EV vehicles going to sit while they charge ? The cost of land in urban centers would make that idea prohibitive expensive.

Parking lots are being paved over because the land is worth more than the parking fees can generate.

It sounds to me like infrastructure concerns for EVs is left well behind the vehicles themselves.

The buggy is ahead of the horse.


----------



## zinfit

sags said:


> If you build the vehicles....the infrastructure will come later ?
> 
> Anything can be done, if someone is willing to pay for it.


The free market capitalist system has no problem meeting and resolving challenges. This will be no different.


----------



## sags

The "free market capitalist" system relies on taxpayer funded infrastructure. They don't build it themselves because it isn't profitable.


----------



## sags

Just taking our townhouse rental complex as an example......and similar complexes exist all over in every urban centre.

The cars park out front of the unit and the electrical plug is in the back courtyard. The units were built in the 1960s and not designed for today's electronics.

To provide a charging station per unit, would require a hydro upgrade to the rental unit itself and underground tunneling under the sidewalk to where the charger would be installed at the designated parking space.

Most of the people living here own one or two vehicles, but some people don't drive at all. They don't need, want, or are willing to pay for a charger.

I think the chargers are a far bigger problem than EV advocates want to think about.

Maybe if the government creates a taxpayer funded program to build chargers at every residence......the EV market share will grow accordingly.

Thus far I haven't heard the government say they are interested in spending the money. It is always.........somebody else will come along and do it.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

Plugging Along said:


> This is exactly what I am trying to say. The last 1.5 hours has no navigation, signals, electricity or roads. i was there a few weeks ago and I had to go to the closes secondary hwy for with my gps. There are no stations on that hey to charge, then I had to go to this gravel road which which the last of the cell and navigatio. My phone had no service my gps had me driving on grass. the path I took for the next 45 minutes was some Path to no where. I parked in field avoiding the wildlife poop and checking for bears. Then i had to make the reverse trip back with no signal, navigation, electricity, roads.
> 
> based on what you have said, EV is not for me.


Personally, I doubt the car Navigation will make you take that specific route since it will seek a route to ensure you make it with enough energy. That means the trip may take longer than it should given an alternative route. 

If there is only 1 road that gets you where you need to go with 0 amenities.....you should maybe consider a 4 wheeler instead .


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> It only takes a few minutes to put gas in a car and they process hundreds of customers a day.


This isn't an advantage. I pay at the pump. I never go in to buy anything else anymore



sags said:


> Where are hundreds of EV vehicles going to sit while they charge ? The cost of land in urban centers would make that idea prohibitive expensive.


Anywhere vehicles park today sags. Literally anywhere vehicles park today. Not rocket science. Just a little imagination



sags said:


> It sounds to me like infrastructure concerns for EVs is left well behind the vehicles themselves.


Do you think they built all the roads and bridges before they sold ICE cars? Just a little vision required

Stop watching media owned by those who profit from the status quo sags


----------



## sags

You can stick a charger into the ground anywhere........but without a connection to a source of hydro it won't do much.

ICE cars drove on the roads that existed at the time. Every EV vehicle requires the charging infrastructure to be in place before they go anywhere.

I suppose private capital could build it all out, but the costs and a fat profit would be passed on to consumers.

As Ontario drivers found out when Ontario built and sold Highway 407........the cost goes up considerably when in private hands.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

sags said:


> Just taking our townhouse rental complex as an example......and similar complexes exist all over in every urban centre.
> 
> The cars park out front of the unit and the electrical plug is in the back courtyard. The units were built in the 1960s and not designed for today's hydro usage.
> 
> To provide a charging station per unit, would require a hydro upgrade to the rental unit itself and underground tunneling under the sidewalk to where the charger would be installed at the designated parking space.
> 
> Most of the people living here own one or two vehicles, but some people don't drive at all. They don't need, want, or are willing to pay for a charger.
> 
> I think the chargers are a far bigger problem than EV advocates want to think about.
> 
> Maybe if the government creates a taxpayer funded program to build chargers at every residence......the EV market share will grow accordingly.
> 
> Thus far I haven't heard the government say they are interested in spending the money. It is always.........somebody else will come along and do it.


There actually are subventions for condo units and commercial spaces - at least there are in my province. I also noticed a lot more new condo builds having the infrastructure already built-in to accommodate future stations. 

I wouldn't consider "charging" to be a big problem. The infrastructure is well underway. It is neither complicated to provide the necessary energy on existing properties.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> It only takes a few minutes to put gas in a car and they process hundreds of customers a day.
> 
> Where are hundreds of EV vehicles going to sit while they charge ?


I think most people will be charging at home overnight and so the stations will have far fewer customers than we have now with gas, but they'll be staying longer.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Most of the people living here own one or two vehicles, but some people don't drive at all. They don't need, want, or are willing to pay for a charger.


Lots of people used horses even when horseless carriages were available. Especially those in rural areas probably didn't have the infrastructure or money for a fancy horseless carriage

People in high density houses will probably use robotaxi, rideshare, rentals etc. Lots of people already do this. Of course you can keep your ice just like people kept their horses until all the roads and bridges were built


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> Just taking our townhouse rental complex as an example......and similar complexes exist all over in every urban centre.


Yeah, I lived downtown for about 10 years and everyone parked on the street and had to buy a parking pass to do so. Most of the homes didn't have driveways since they were built before they invented cars. I can't imagine where those people will charge their EV's.

ltr


----------



## MrMatt

Retired Peasant said:


> I think for these few occasions, just rent a suitable vehicle.


I am also thinking that, which is why I bought a compact instead of a full size truck.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> You can stick a charger into the ground anywhere........but without a connection to a source of hydro it won't do much.


You can build a gas station anywhere.... but without a refinery and fuel delivery it won't do much. Open your mind just a little bit. Just a tiny bit. You can even generate your own electricity much easier than refine your own fuel



sags said:


> ICE cars drove on the roads that existed at the time. Every EV vehicle requires the charging infrastructure to be in place before they go anywhere.


EVs will drive where the chargers exist as well. As more demand for chargers exists more chargers will get built. The most remote places will be last just like roads and bridges. It's not so complicated! The roads and bridged didn't always exist because they did when you were born



sags said:


> I suppose private capital could build it all out, but the costs and a fat profit would be passed on to consumers.


LOL and so you think the public built all the gas stations?


----------



## Plugging Along

Mortgage u/w said:


> Personally, I doubt the car Navigation will make you take that specific route since it will seek a route to ensure you make it with enough energy. That means the trip may take longer than it should given an alternative route.
> 
> If there is only 1 road that gets you where you need to go with 0 amenities.....you should maybe consider a 4 wheeler instead .


Yes, only 'road' in. There is no other road. In fact, there is a deal to go through someone's private land in order to get there. Then it's off-road, if we are doing a tenting, then we drive more off road, where we go to our site. It's very specific situation but one I do enough that I have to consider. Most of the vehicles that go in there now are SUV's and trucks. Their is no other way to get in, because on the other side is water then mountain. Pain in the butt to get in but beautiful when you get it.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> The "free market capitalist" system relies on taxpayer funded infrastructure. They don't build it themselves because it isn't profitable.


Uhh, no, forestry sector builds their logging roads, they'll use public roads if they're there, but if they're not and they need them they build them.


When you build a new subdivision, who puts in the new roads and sewers? The developer.
After it's built, it's assumed by the city and the maintenance is covered by the user fees,(water/sewer) or taxes (roads)


----------



## andrewf

like_to_retire said:


> Do you leave an EV plugged in all the time when it sits in a driveway?
> 
> I can see that charge cord getting in my way all the time when I'm walking around. I usually drive my gas vehicle about once or maybe twice a week to go shopping and the rest of the time I walk or bike, and so the car just sits there.
> 
> This behavior usually results in my gas vehicles requiring a new battery every 2 years - no big deal. Would an EV's battery take similar punishment if it was unplugged while sitting in the driveway after it had been fully charged (so that there wasn't a cord getting in the way)?
> 
> ltr


Tends to be best practice, but if you have a car with big range you can just charge it overnight once or twice a week. A Model 3 has more range than I drive in a typical week. But if you want your car to always be topped up in the morning and never have to charge away from home, it is best practice to plug in when you get home. If you want to do work around the car, you could unplug it while you're doing it. 

There is no real risk of causing harm to the battery leaving it charged. Most EVs, Tesla certainly, have very intelligent battery management system that treats the battery very well. Typically in day to day use you only charge to 80-90% where there is no real concern about degradation. The pack is kept at ideal operating temperature and never has more charge drawn or applied to it than it can handle at its current temperature. It is nothing like the lead acid batteries you find in cars (Tesla has those, too, in older models to power accessories and they tend to fail early as well).


----------



## andrewf

Plugging Along said:


> Extreme or not, it IS MY scenario and it happens enough I have o keep is common scenario for my requirement. I have nothing against eclectic cars and actually one but for MY needs, it doesn’t sound like its going to work.


That's fine. I already said that I would not recommend trying to use an EV in that scenario. One could, if one wanted, rent/borrow/use a second vehicle. Maybe a plug in hybrid is good for people with this use case. Most people don't do this kind of thing, and EV adoption will be a better option for them.


----------



## sags

EV charging infrastructure is going to cost taxpayers a lot of money, and they better get started on it soon.

They need to stop talking about it and start building it on a mass scale.

In our city.......we have a piddly 25 public chargers within a 15 km range.

_Competition and congestion around EV charging stations has gotten particularly bad in cities like San Francisco, where there’s a growing number of electric car drivers. (The places with the highest density of charging stations per 100,000 people are Vermont, California, Colorado, Hawaii, and Washington, DC.)

“In San Francisco, there’s a huge congestion problem, and there are simply not enough plugs for EVs in that metro area,” said Hughes-Cromwick. “There is congestion in areas where EV demand has flourished. If we don’t get going on this, we will have roadblocks, especially for longer trips.”









The fastest way to get more people to buy electric vehicles


America’s EV charging station infrastructure is woefully lacking.




www.vox.com




_


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> EV charging infrastructure is going to cost taxpayers a lot of money, and they better get started on it soon.


It shouldn't cost taxpayers a penny.
If you want a charger, YOU pay for it.
If communities or groups want to get together, go ahead, but my taxes shouldn't be used to recharge your vehicle.



> In our city.......we have a piddly 25 public chargers within a 15 km range.


Move to London, we have over 100 public chargers, spread across the city.
Plus many detached homes, where it is easy to install your own private charger.


----------



## off.by.10

Plugging Along said:


> I like the idea of a plug in hybrid. Just to confirm, if one goes more than 50km, the car then uses gas until you re charge? How long for a recharge? Is there such a thing as a quick recharge? I am often driving between kids places across town, so am early waiting for the next pick up. It's not enough time for me to go home.


Yes, gas until you plug it in again. A few hours is typical but it varies by vehicle. And generally no quick recharge, or pointless when available.


Plugging Along said:


> We generally do a lot of short trips, but know we can be off the beaten track alot. I do really like the idea of the hybrid. How different is hybrid vs. a plug in hybrid.


The hybrid gets all its energy from gas. The plug-in hybrid will get some of it from recharging. The plug-in will let you enjoy the silence of electric only drive around town, like an EV. It is heavier, typically has slightly less cargo space, will cost more upfront (less per km on electricity in most places) and may be more difficult to find. Some plug-ins have the option of providing substantial AC power from the battery, without the noise of a running engine. I think that's about it.


----------



## zinfit

sags said:


> The "free market capitalist" system relies on taxpayer funded infrastructure. They don't build it themselves because it isn't profitable.


i knew that would get the socialist going.


----------



## sags

The hydro system was built decades ago and won't support everyone plugging in their vehicles overnight.

So let's get out the billions of bucks and start building. It takes more than day dreams to get it done.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> The hydro system was built decades ago and won't support everyone plugging in their vehicles overnight.


Yeah, I doubt our present system would tolerate everyone plugging in a car overnight. At the very least, those overnight cheap Time-Of-Use kilowatts wouldn't likely be available any more. Most would have level 2 chargers that can supply about 7000 watts. Multiply that times every household charging at once. Seems like a lot of power.

ltr


----------



## agent99

Getting back to whether next vehicle will (or should) be an EV.

*EMISSIONS*
I posted the following study in the Tesla thread, that concludes that a Tesla 3 actually produces more greenhouse emissions than an equivalent sized ICE vehicle over a complete life cycle. The comparison may not be totally fair for all EVs because the range and power output of the Tesla is likely greater han the ICE they compared with. But still, will EVs make a significant change in long term global emisions? Definitely in cities, but globally, not so clear.

Not everyone questions this, so *one reason for an EV might be that you THINK it will improve the planet. *Environmentalists and governments do seem to think so.



https://www.e3s-conferences.org/articles/e3sconf/pdf/2019/62/e3sconf_icbte2019_01009.pdf



Bear in mind that that was not a comparison of equals. Other studies show lower life cycle costs for EVs, but this depends on where they are made and used. A global comparison of the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of combustion engine and electric passenger cars | International Council on Clean Transportation

*Carbon Taxes*
We have a carbon tax that is supposed to encourage us to reduce fuel purchases. I figured that we will pay about $154 in carbon tax in 12 months. We get a $450 credit on our taxes. (We don't use NG or oil but even with those, taxpayer in Ontario is ahead of the game.) So where is the incentive to change? Maybe sticker shock when you fill up and haven't considered the bigger picture? Same with heating fuels. Who then even gets sticker shock? Probably just another small change in automatic bank payment.

To change to EV or not?

*Case 1*
If we have an existing ICE car that still runs well, the *economics of driving ICE and maintaining it for another 5 or 10 years vs buying a new EV almost certainly favour keeping the ICE*. The higher operating cost just can't offset the high initial cost of an EV, even after any rebates in your area.
*Case2*
If our existing ICE car is on it's last legs and needs to go, then we look at cost of new EV vs new ICE and the relative operating costs. EV could cost 1.5X as much as an ICE, but operating costs will be less. Earn Back time in this RAV4 example was quoted as 7-8 years , otherwise longer So *if comparing new EV with new ICE, economics "may" marginally favour an EV.*

I have no bias on this. I would love to own an EV. I like cars of all types! But given that we have several reliable older vehicles can see no justification at this time.


----------



## sags

Our new vehicle (compact SUV) has GM's new 3 cylinder engine. It generates 155 hp and was designed for Formula 1 racing.

It has great performance and gets over 30 miles per gallon. EVs aren't the only automotive advancements being made.

The engine, transmission, turbo, and rear end combination are given high marks from automotive engineers and consumers.

I am also hearing Iceland has developed a way to scrub fossil fuel emissions at a lot lower cost.

Maybe we should concentrate on cleaner emissions from fossil fuels and forget about EV vehicles.


----------



## agent99

sags said:


> Maybe we should concentrate on cleaner emissions from fossil fuels and forget about EV vehicles.


Nah - We have a finite amount of fossil fuels. Even without considering environmental issues, those resources will eventually run out or become very expensive to access. Just as well we are starting this now. It is early days. I don't believe we can control climate change, but just as well to try and hopefully make a small dent in rate of change.


----------



## bgc_fan

agent99 said:


> Not everyone questions this, so *one reason for an EV might be that you THINK it will improve the planet. *Environmentalists and governments do seem to think so.
> 
> https://www.e3s-conferences.org/articles/e3sconf/pdf/2019/62/e3sconf_icbte2019_01009.pdf


That's actually junk. I say that because it actually doesn't provide any proof for the numbers or actually compare the methodology they used to an equivalent ICE vehicle. Namely, when you calculate usage carbon footprint, it depends a lot on the source of the electricity which is something that they don't differentiate, nor explain what they used. Instead they just came with a blanket statement that 26 kWh/100km usage with some efficiency loss, but don't actually state how that translates to the carbon footprint. An electrical grid that is primary hydroelectric would be near 0. Especially when their main argument is that the majority of the carbon footprint is due to the energy required to run the car.



agent99 said:


> Bear in mind that that was not a comparison of equals. Other studies show lower life cycle costs for EVs, but this depends on where they are made and used. A global comparison of the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of combustion engine and electric passenger cars | International Council on Clean Transportation


So this one is more reasonable because it actually takes into account energy source.



agent99 said:


> *Carbon Taxes*
> We have a carbon tax that is supposed to encourage us to reduce fuel purchases. I figured that we will pay about $154 in carbon tax in 12 months. We get a $450 credit on our taxes. (We don't use NG or oil but even with those, taxpayer in Ontario is ahead of the game.) So where is the incentive to change? Maybe sticker shock when you fill up and haven't considered the bigger picture? Same with heating fuels. Who then even gets sticker shock? Probably just another small change in automatic bank payment.


The carbon tax will ramp up which is where the incentive to change comes into play. 



agent99 said:


> To change to EV or not?
> 
> *Case 1*
> If we have an existing ICE car that still runs well, the *economics of driving ICE and maintaining it for another 5 or 10 years vs buying a new EV almost certainly favour keeping the ICE*. The higher operating cost just can't offset the high initial cost of an EV, even after any rebates in your area.
> *Case2*
> If our existing ICE car is on it's last legs and needs to go, then we look at cost of new EV vs new ICE and the relative operating costs. EV could cost 1.5X as much as an ICE, but operating costs will be less. Earn Back time in this RAV4 example was quoted as 7-8 years , otherwise longer So *if comparing new EV with new ICE, economics "may" marginally favour an EV.*


And I fall into Case 1. It will be a while that I get rid of my car, but I'm keeping my eye out on new models in case something drastic happens, i.e. accident.


----------



## m3s

agent99 said:


> Not everyone questions this, so *one reason for an EV might be that you THINK it will improve the planet. *Environmentalists and governments do seem to think so.


The only thing that will improve the planet is less people.

EVs can be good for many other reasons. Like performance and tech and smog/noise pollution.

Good things always lead to more babies though so it doesn't help the planet

It helps the government increase the population and tax revenue


----------



## afulldeck

Benting said:


> Forget about EV, what about 'Blackfly' or 'flying EV'. Won't mind have one
> Opener’s Blackfly Electric Aircraft Will Cost the Same as a Luxe SUV – Robb Report


Wonder if that will be legal in Canada....need to get to work....


----------



## cainvest

agent99 said:


> Nah - We have a finite amount of fossil fuels.


Since they can make gas, diesel and jet fuel from extracting CO2 from air I don't think it is "finite".


----------



## sags

A significant part of Joe Biden's infrastructure package deals with building out the EV charging network, so in the US at least.........the taxpayer is paying for it.

Of course, the way it is going for him and the Democrats they might be lucky to get lunch money passed.


----------



## afulldeck

Plugging Along said:


> Extreme or not, it IS MY scenario and it happens enough I have o keep is common scenario for my requirement. I have nothing against eclectic cars and actually one but for MY needs, it doesn’t sound like its going to work.


Its not. According to the 2011 Census, more than 6.3 million Canadians were living in rural areas, that is, areas with fewer than 1,000 inhabitants and a population density below 400 people per square kilometre. Hardly seems extreme.....


----------



## AltaRed

m3s said:


> The only thing that will improve the planet is less people.
> 
> EVs can be good for many other reasons. Like performance and tech and smog/noise pollution.
> 
> Good things always lead to more babies though so it doesn't help the planet
> 
> It helps the government increase the population and tax revenue


Not sure what this was really meant to say but increasing standards of living actually decreases fertility rate. That is generally the case in every developing country so far and many OECD countries have to boost immigration to avoid population shrinkage. That is a good thing if we could get global fertility rate below 2 and to actually start shrinking global population. I am all for significant penalties being applied to families that have more than 2 children, or perhaps 3 (which offsets those with one or zero children).


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> The hydro system was built decades ago and won't support everyone plugging in their vehicles overnight.
> 
> So let's get out the billions of bucks and start building. It takes more than day dreams to get it done.


Again hydro infrastructure isn't constructed with tax dollars.
So maybe the companies who own it should build it up? And their customers should pay for those upgrades?


----------



## MrMatt

zinfit said:


> sags said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "free market capitalist" system relies on taxpayer funded infrastructure. They don't build it themselves because it isn't profitable.
> 
> 
> 
> i knew that would get the socialist going.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is the socialist can't identify the taxpayer funded infrastructure they want built. 
Water, Electric, natural gas, telecom, it's all funded by customer fees, not tax dollars.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> A significant part of Joe Biden's infrastructure package deals with building out the EV charging network, so in the US at least.........the taxpayer is paying for it.
> 
> Of course, the way it is going for him and the Democrats they might be lucky to get lunch money passed.


Of course, that's a different country.
But why would the government build EV charging infrastructure, private companies are more than happy to build this out.

The infrastructure exists, and was built by private companies, now the US federal government wants to come late to the party and build out a redundant, taxpayer subsidized competitor? Is that what government should be doing?


----------



## agent99

cainvest said:


> Since they can make gas, diesel and jet fuel from extracting CO2 from air I don't think it is "finite".


Sorry, but we DO have a finite amount of fossil fuel. CO2 in the air is not a fossil fuel. It results from burning fossil fuels. 

If "they" can convert CO2 into fuels, how come they are not doing it? And why is the world moving more and more to electric power? 

Well, to answer my own question, those processes, although technically possible, require more energy than they produce. I believe that is what the laws of thermodynamics would say. At least one of them requires hydrogen. How do they generate that. They would say solar or wind. Hmm, how much would be needed? Why not use the hydrogen directly as the fuel instead of re-emitting CO2 by burning? 

The research based processes may offer a theoretical way of reducing CO2 in the air in a small way or from stack emissions, but not as a future source of fuel.


----------



## AltaRed

agent99 said:


> Sorry, but we DO have a finite amount of fossil fuel. CO2 in the air is not a fossil fuel. It results from burning fossil fuels.


And of course, many other things such as animal respiratory systems and decomposition of organic matter. Humans are simply accelerating the rate at which sequestered carbon is returned to the atmosphere. The Permian and Jurassic periods were a time of huge carbon sequestration. The extraction of fossil fuels is indeed finite at some point but it would take thousands of years to run out of ALL carbon fuels.


----------



## agent99

bgc_fan said:


> That's actually junk.


Are you familiar with the LCA and GREET methodology the paper used? They obviously did not include the large amounts of detailed input required for modelling. They are in China and no doubt used their own national figures for emission data input.

Unless you are expert in such studies, I wouldn't call work done by those that are expert, junk.

I would give them the benefit of doubt that their conclusions are correct for their location. A Chinese Tesla 3 may very well produce greater greenhouse emissions than an equivalent sized Chinese ICE car.

We will have to have at least two vehicles reach end of life before we consider an EV. Total value of our cars is less than one basic EV


----------



## m3s

AltaRed said:


> That is a good thing if we could get global fertility rate below 2 and to actually start shrinking global population. I am all for significant penalties being applied to families that have more than 2 children, or perhaps 3 (which offsets those with one or zero children).


Besides China, most countries encourage and financially incentivize children. We need the wage slaves to keep the pyramid scheme up to pay for the retiree benefits

We measure success in the increase of GDP. Maybe we can replace wage slaves with robots but then who buys all the consumer products


----------



## agent99




----------



## cainvest

agent99 said:


> Sorry, but we DO have a finite amount of fossil fuel. CO2 in the air is not a fossil fuel. It results from burning fossil fuels.


Fair enough though many think all gas and oil products have to come from fossil fuels.



agent99 said:


> If "they" can convert CO2 into fuels, how come they are not doing it? And why is the world moving more and more to electric power?


There are doing it at a test plant in Squamish, BC. 
Many reasons as to why ... most likely because oil from the ground is still cheaper then that created from CO2. Last article I saw said CO2 based gasoline was about $4/gal. Also polution is still created though CO2 based fuels are cleaner due to no contaminants.


----------



## bgc_fan

agent99 said:


> Are you familiar with the LCA and GREET methodology the paper used? They obviously did not include the large amounts of detailed input required for modelling. They are in China and no doubt used their own national figures for emission data input.
> 
> Unless you are expert in such studies, I wouldn't call work done by those that are expert, junk.
> 
> I would give them the benefit of doubt that their conclusions are correct for their location. A Chinese Tesla 3 may very well produce greater greenhouse emissions than an equivalent sized Chinese ICE car.
> 
> We will have to have at least two vehicles reach end of life before we consider an EV. Total value of our cars is less than one basic EV


Life cycle analysis isn't difficult to do. The issue is that they don't state any assumptions, nor what initial numbers they used. They essentially just pulled random numbers out of the air in the conclusion. It's essentially GIGO, if we don't know what values are going into the analysis, what comes out is junk. Not too mention the fact that it's not reproducible, since they don't show what ICE car is being used for comparison, so there's no way for anyone to actually verify their claim.


----------



## AltaRed

m3s said:


> Besides China, most countries encourage and financially incentivize children. We need the wage slaves to keep the pyramid scheme up to pay for the retiree benefits
> 
> We measure success in the increase of GDP. Maybe we can replace wage slaves with robots but then who buys all the consumer products


Financial incentives are not working because more and more people like their standard of living better than being bought with a few measly dollars to have children. Government policies don't remotely make a dent in such costs. China's birth rate has actually declined since the start of the 2 child policy. It is not working to my knowledge anywhere else either per the UN and Pew Research. 

Some enlightened countries are importing their worker bees with a very liberal immigration policy (hint - Canada) while others like Japan, Italy, Greece and similar insular counties don't get it. The overall result globally is a slowing of population growth. What needs to be done is to arrest the growth entirely and roll it over into decline.


----------



## agent99

bgc_fan said:


> Life cycle analysis isn't difficult to do. The issue is that they don't state any assumptions, nor what initial numbers they used. They essentially just pulled random numbers out of the air in the conclusion. It's essentially GIGO, if we don't know what values are going into the analysis, what comes out is junk. Not too mention the fact that it's not reproducible, since they don't show what ICE car is being used for comparison, so there's no way for anyone to actually verify their claim.


I have no idea about what input they used. You think life cycle analysis is easy. It may be with the proper tools like LCA and GREET if you take the time to learn about them. You say they pulled the numbers out of the air. In fact, their results look quite plausible for China. You must know more about the background to their study than I do! You do yourself a disservice my making unsubstantiated comments.

Some light reading for you re LCA and GREET 





__





Life Cycle Assessment - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics







www.sciencedirect.com












Analysis: When do electric vehicles become cleaner than gasoline cars?


You glide silently out of the Tesla (TSLA.O) showroom in your sleek new electric Model 3, satisfied you're looking great and doing your bit for the planet.




www.reuters.com













PS: The Chinese paper states it used Argonne's GREET program as described above. As staed above, an EV can take 5 or more years to catch up with an ICE when using largely coal fired electricity grids as they have in China and some US states. Appears to confirm the China report.

Anyway, hope this helps with your understanding of issue. Enough of this for me! No EVs for me anyway for quite a while.


----------



## AltaRed

agent99 said:


> Anyway, hope this helps with your understanding of issue. Enough of this for me! No EVs for me anyway for quite a while.


Thank you for that information. It provides some basis for an appropriate discussion rather than for some to just perpetuate misinformation. Personally, I am all for EVs replacing ICE vehicles but only on the basis of fact, economics an practicality. One size does not fit all in much of anything.


----------



## cainvest

This might help in the ICE vs EV polution discussion ...


----------



## agent99

cainvest said:


> There are doing it at a test plant in Squamish, BC.


I have read about that. The process uses a LOT of electricity and it seems, natural gas too. Thermodynamics says you have to *provide* energy for such a process. It makes no sense to me to use renewable power to produce hydrogen to produce gasoline from CO2 when you can use the power more effectively directly or use the hydrogen in fuel cells or elsewhere. Electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen is not that efficient. 

The main objective appears to be to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Fuel production is secondary. But after CO2 is converted into gasoline or other fuels, it is then returned to the atmosphere when burned. So no net removal. 

I spent most of my working life in the chemical, electrochemical and petrochemical industries so I am interested in this type of research. Maybe something good will come of it eventually. I would think that they should concentrate on using CO2 rich sources rather than atmospheric air (if that is what they are doing). However, others are already working on that.


----------



## agent99

cainvest said:


> This might help in the ICE vs EV polution discussion ...


Good video. Covers all the bases. More or less confirms most of our previous discussions. 

Mind you he did say to check sources of data when reading EV stuff. Did he provide his  Maybe they are there somewhere....


----------



## off.by.10

agent99 said:


> I have read about that. The process uses a LOT of electricity and it seems, natural gas too. Thermodynamics says you have to *provide* energy for such a process. It makes no sense to me to use renewable power to produce hydrogen to produce gasoline from CO2 when you can use the power more effectively directly or use the hydrogen in fuel cells or elsewhere. Electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen is not that efficient.


It could make sense for applications where liquid fuels are the only form of energy dense enough to be practical (eg. transcontinental flights, rockets). There are also chemical uses for hydrocarbons. But if this gets brought up as a solution for ground transportation, it's probably just a pretext to maintain status quo.


----------



## agent99

cainvest said:


> There are doing it at a test plant in Squamish, BC.


I just read this on the CBC New site. I had seen the heading before, but never read it! It mentions the Squamish company.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/in-ic...s-actually-help-stop-global-warming-1.6227198
Other than the Squamish attempt to convert to fuel, both companies appear to be adsorbing CO2 from the atmosphere, dissolving in water and then pumping it underground. Seems like a kind of hopeless idea?? Others like the Sask Boundary Dam project are doing carbon capture on a large scale using smoke stack gases that have much higher CO2 concentrations. I think there are also projects in UK & Norway that are going to pipe gases down deep into the North Sea.


----------



## Money172375

sags said:


> Our new vehicle (compact SUV) has GM's new 3 cylinder engine. It generates 155 hp and was designed for Formula 1 racing.
> 
> It has great performance and gets over 30 miles per gallon. EVs aren't the only automotive advancements being made.
> 
> The engine, transmission, turbo, and rear end combination are given high marks from automotive engineers and consumers.
> 
> I am also hearing Iceland has developed a way to scrub fossil fuel emissions at a lot lower cost.
> 
> Maybe we should concentrate on cleaner emissions from fossil fuels and forget about EV vehicles.


I’d like to learn more about the 3 cylinder GM Formula 1 engine.


----------



## agent99

sags said:


> Our new vehicle (compact SUV) has GM's new 3 cylinder engine. It generates 155 hp and was designed for Formula 1 racing.
> 
> *It has great performance and gets over 30 miles per gallon.* EVs aren't the only automotive advancements being made.


Sags, 30mpg is not that great. Our bigger than compact 2019 4cyl Outback has an EPA rating of 32mpg on highway and actually does better than that. We only use it for long trips.
BTW, We once owned a 3-cyl car. It did 85mpg! Very low CO2 emissions too. But unfortunately discontinued. Not quite a SUV!


----------



## agent99

off.by.10 said:


> It could make sense for applications where liquid fuels are the only form of energy dense enough to be practical (eg. transcontinental flights, rockets). There are also chemical uses for hydrocarbons. But if this gets brought up as a solution for ground transportation, it's probably just a pretext to maintain status quo.


There is a lot more to the liquid fossil fuels we use than could be made directly in such a process. Gasoline is not a single substance. It includes hundreds of components. Mostly alkanes and aromatics. A process like the one suggested might be able to make one or two gasoline components (at considerable cost), but it won't produce a fuel product than can be used directly. At best, something that might be able to be blended with fossil based hydrocarbon fuels. This is pie in sky anyway.


----------



## bgc_fan

agent99 said:


> PS: The Chinese paper states it used Argonne's GREET program as described above. As staed above, an EV can take 5 or more years to catch up with an ICE when using largely coal fired electricity grids as they have in China and some US states. Appears to confirm the China report.


Not really, because from that report that you posted, it actually says that it'll never catch up since for the lifetime of the car they're stating that the CO2 is emissions are categorically higher per km over the lifetime of the vehicles which is in opposition to everything else that you've posted.


----------



## sags

Money172375 said:


> I’d like to learn more about the 3 cylinder GM Formula 1 engine.


GM doesn't participate directly in Formula 1, but they used some of the tech from past 3 cylinder and other engines used in Formula 1 engines.

The new engine is a long ways from their previous 3 cylinder engines. I was reluctant about the vehicle until I read the reviews on it.

The one thing I have noticed is the engine is quiet and there is no lag in the transmission and turbo.

It is much smoother acceleration that our previous vehicles. My one question is durability, as it is a relatively new engine.

This is a good article that goes into depth on the engineering contained in the engine.

There are many other reviews available at automotive sites or on Youtube.









Driving Tiny Engines: Can 3 cylinders ever be enough?


Thoughts from 3,000 kilometers with GM's surprisingly-good three-cylinder engine




driving.ca


----------



## agent99

bgc_fan said:


> Not really, because from that report that you posted, it actually says that it'll never catch up since for the lifetime of the car they're stating that the CO2 is emissions are categorically higher per km over the lifetime of the vehicles which is in opposition to everything else that you've posted.


Sorry, my post may not have been clear.
I was trying to say that the Chinese analysis was likely accurate for their conditions. 
The 5+yr catch-up period was from the other reference and applies to locations with high CO2 emissions, like coal producing states. 
The video cainvest posted had similar conclusions.


----------



## bgc_fan

agent99 said:


> Sorry, my post may not have been clear.
> I was trying to say that the Chinese analysis was likely accurate for their conditions.
> The 5+yr catch-up period was from the other reference and applies to locations with high CO2 emissions, like coal producing states.
> The video cainvest posted had similar conclusions.


Let's be clear. In the original post, you had 2 links, one was for a report that I consider garbage, and the other one actually breaks down to geographic areas, including China. The second one actually shows that China EV generates lower CO2 emissions. So basically, you have one report that is completely offside everything else. I'd say that just pushes that report as junk.

I don't have an issue about the initial production CO2 footprint. I have an issue about the ongoing electrical CO2 footprint.


----------



## agent99

..


----------



## AltaRed

agent99 said:


> I am not interested in continuing this or any other discussion with you.


It could be a generational thing. Too many of the young'uns forget


----------



## agent99

AltaRed said:


> It could be a generational thing. Too many of the young'uns forget


I keep reminding myself that I need to stop engaging with the know-it-all youngsters who still have the "arrogance of youth". My memory is still good enough to recall when I was like that 

I am interested in subject but not planning on buying a Tesla or an EV any time soon anyway. Already have too many cars and hardly drive them.


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> The hydro system was built decades ago and won't support everyone plugging in their vehicles overnight.
> 
> So let's get out the billions of bucks and start building. It takes more than day dreams to get it done.


There is plenty of unused capacity overnight. That's why we make the cheapest hydro rates at night, to encourage people to shift consumption to off-peak. If all passenger vehicles were to become electric overnight, it would result in a 30% increase in electricity consumption. Plenty of off-peak capacity to support that already, and we add new generating capacity every year anyway.


----------



## kcowan

andrewf said:


> There is plenty of unused capacity overnight. That's why we make the cheapest hydro rates at night, to encourage people to shift consumption to off-peak. If all passenger vehicles were to become electric overnight, it would result in a 30% increase in electricity consumption. Plenty of off-peak capacity to support that already, and we add new generating capacity every year anyway.


While what you say is correct, it flies in the face of the growth of fast charging stations across the continent. Aimed at increasing the daily demand. Overnight charging only works for occasional use second cars.


----------



## AltaRed

kcowan said:


> While what you say is correct, it flies in the face of the growth of fast charging stations across the continent. Aimed at increasing the daily demand. Overnight charging only works for occasional use second cars.


That is the difference between analytical/intellectual//academic thinking and everyday practical/pragmatic/human behaviour...as some of it has been in this and the Tesla threads. Real life will always be different. It can be cajoled and persuaded and guided over time but it will not be bullied by what idealists think in their padded rooms.


----------



## m3s

kcowan said:


> While what you say is correct, it flies in the face of the growth of fast charging stations across the continent. Aimed at increasing the daily demand. Overnight charging only works for occasional use second cars.


Overnight charging should work for reasonable commutes and errands no? At least in the US everything is a lot closer for the vast majority it's not like I have to drive 2-4hrs to get to an Ikea like in Canada (besides no mans land states) During covid I don't think I've even left EV range

Grid energy storage is the talk in the US. Battery tech has improved to where we can start to mitigate the wasted power that is produced during off-peak. We had a coal power plant as backup for a critical military system in AK.. replaced it with lithium ion. Although they are getting a small nuclear microreactor now so there's that.

EVs actually add to this grid storage. My power went out for a day last week and if I'd had a Tesla I could have powered my essentials probably throughout the entire outage? Especially with nat gas that just needs some juice to blow that heat around etc


----------



## andrewf

cainvest said:


> Since they can make gas, diesel and jet fuel from extracting CO2 from air I don't think it is "finite".


Synthetic hydrocarbons are not fossil fuels.


----------



## cliffsecord

From my personal experience owning an EV for a year, I can say that I've only used the Supercharger network maybe six times and I drive my car everyday and many times multiple times. Fast chargers are for long trips mostly. Now, apartment dwellers will use the fast charging network more, but should ease up as apartments and condos start retrofitting and new buildings include this as part of their plan.

A lot of people think that you need 240 V 50 amps to charge, but in reality, people really only need 240 V 20 Amps. This is plenty fast for overnight charging for the majority of the people. This coupled with load sharing for each building should make it all work out. For instance, Tesla chargers can be ganged together and will distribute the current accordingly to each car.

No doubt there will be some learning and pain, but things will work out if planned properly. If the government doesn't push then we won't get to where we need fast enough.

I'm pro EV, but I know that it's not for everyone. I even suggested my cousin to get a PHEV instead of an EV because of their needs. They only have one car and would be going to areas with little to no charging infrastructure.


----------



## andrewf

kcowan said:


> While what you say is correct, it flies in the face of the growth of fast charging stations across the continent. Aimed at increasing the daily demand. Overnight charging only works for occasional use second cars.


Charging stations are for the 10-20% of charging not done at home. Most EV adopters would want a means of charging overnight, as it will be much cheaper, and more convenient. It will take time for most consumers to have this capability at their home, particularly if they live in a multi-family building. Just like it took time for phone lines, electricity and indoor plumbing to be deployed.

Many charging stations also include on-site batteries to avoid high peak power draw, which is often more important in industrial pricing.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> That is the difference between analytical/intellectual//academic thinking and everyday practical/pragmatic/human behaviour...as some of it has been in this and the Tesla threads. Real life will always be different. It can be cajoled and persuaded and guided over time but it will not be bullied by what idealists think in their padded rooms.


Real life is most owners do the vast majority of their charging at home.


----------



## AltaRed

That is likely true but the numbers are not really known. It is likely supposition based on polls, installed charger information and current ownership. That is Keith's point. 

Real life will most likely need more public charging as more people buy EVs and have no home location from which to charge. We actually don't know how this will play out in terms of charging habits and locations and will depend a lot on government policies for new builds and retro-fits. It is not terribly promising so far here in BC and we, along with Quebec, are the lead provinces so far.


----------



## andrewf

duplicate


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> That is likely true but the numbers are not really known. It is likely supposition based on polls, installed charger information and current ownership. That is Keith's point.
> 
> Real life will most likely need more public charging as more people buy EVs and have no home location from which to charge. We actually don't know how this will play out in terms of charging habits and locations and will depend a lot on government policies for new builds and retro-fits. It is not terribly promising so far here in BC and we, along with Quebec, are the lead provinces so far.


I remember seeing data from Teslab, a company that provides telematics to owners using the Tesla API. They get all kinds of interesting data, such as average consumption (by geography and temperature), average battery degradation by distance driven, and how much people charge at home vs Lvl 2 or rapid chargers. IIRC it was around 85% at home. I can't find a source for that, but it might be available if anyone cares to do the digging on google.


----------



## like_to_retire

cliffsecord said:


> A lot of people think that you need 240 V 50 amps to charge, but in reality, people really only need 240 V 20 Amps. This is plenty fast for overnight charging for the majority of the people.


Makes me wonder if I would be fine with simply plugging an EV into my 110v outdoor plug since I only use my car about once a week to go shopping, and then I'm lucky if I go 10Km. I generally just walk or bike everywhere, and I suspect a lot of retired people are in the same boat of using their vehicles infrequently.

ltr


----------



## cliffsecord

Andrew, the problem is you aren't addressing AR's point. Right now, the majority of the people who have EVs are home owners who have access to a home charger. AR's point is for the future buyers who do not have a home charger because they are in an apartment or high rise or for whatever other reason.

In my local Tesla Facebook group, there are occasional people who live in apartments and didn't quite think far enough ahead. Heck even my co-worker who lives in an apartment and has a Prius Prime has this problem...he's nuts though and uses the local Ikea or Shopping mall to charge.


----------



## MrMatt

like_to_retire said:


> Makes me wonder if I would be fine with simply plugging an EV into my 110v outdoor plug since I only use my car about once a week to go shopping, and then I'm lucky if I go 10Km. I generally just walk or bike everywhere, and I suspect a lot of retired people are in the same boat of using their vehicles infrequently.
> 
> ltr


Short answer, yes.
Long answer look into it.

really long answer, your fuel cost is near zero, you're better off buying a gas car, or just taking a taxi.


----------



## cliffsecord

like_to_retire said:


> Makes me wonder if I would be fine with simply plugging an EV into my 110v outdoor plug since I only use my car about once a week to go shopping, and then I'm lucky if I go 10Km. I generally just walk or bike everywhere, and I suspect a lot of retired people are in the same boat of using their vehicles infrequently.
> 
> ltr


110 V is ok when it's warm. Once it gets cold, all that energy is just used to try and get the battery warm enough to charge. Generally in winter 110 V is difficult charging for winters. On the coldest days you won't even get a charge.


----------



## agent99

cliffsecord said:


> 110 V is ok when it's warm. Once it gets cold, all that energy is just used to try and get the battery warm enough to charge. Generally in winter 110 V is difficult charging for winters. On the coldest days you won't even get a charge.


Interesting. So 110V/15A just provides enough warming for batteries so they can be charged? You would think that once batteries were warmed up, changing would start. But I guess there is quite a lot of heat loss at sub zero temperatures.


----------



## like_to_retire

MrMatt said:


> really long answer, your fuel cost is near zero, you're better off buying a gas car, or just taking a taxi.


Yep, I've long decided that since there is no fuel advantage with an EV for my situation, I'll pass and get another ICE.

ltr


----------



## like_to_retire

cliffsecord said:


> 110 V is ok when it's warm. Once it gets cold, all that energy is just used to try and get the battery warm enough to charge. Generally in winter 110 V is difficult charging for winters. On the coldest days you won't even get a charge.


Fascinating, I didn't know that.

ltr


----------



## andrewf

cliffsecord said:


> Andrew, the problem is you aren't addressing AR's point. Right now, the majority of the people who have EVs are home owners who have access to a home charger. AR's point is for the future buyers who do not have a home charger because they are in an apartment or high rise or for whatever other reason.
> 
> In my local Tesla Facebook group, there are occasional people who live in apartments and didn't quite think far enough ahead. Heck even my co-worker who lives in an apartment and has a Prius Prime has this problem...he's nuts though and uses the local Ikea or Shopping mall to charge.


Sure, that will change over time. Condos/rental buildings will be pressured to install charging stations. Many businesses will install lower speed chargers to attract foot traffic (retailers, restaurants, etc.). Besides Tesla, other charging network operators really need to work on the user experience and possibly also cost. Things will change, and it will become valuable to have the ability to charge at home, like many other modern conveniences.


----------



## like_to_retire

andrewf said:


> Sure, that will change over time. Condos/rental buildings will be pressured to install charging stations.


There are many thousands of people who live in the downtown areas of cities in houses and row houses that were built before they invented cars, so there are no driveways. I know, because I did that for at least a decade. These people park on the street by purchasing parking permits year round. A bit of a pain, but workable.

What do you propose for these people?

ltr


----------



## bgc_fan

like_to_retire said:


> There are many thousands of people who live in the downtown areas of cities in houses and row houses that were built before they invented cars, so there are no driveways. I know, because I did that for at least a decade. These people park on the street by purchasing parking permits year round. A bit of a pain, but workable.
> 
> What do you propose for these people?
> 
> ltr


Maybe it's just in certain developments back in the 70s or 80s, but I always assumed that many townhomes had these posts mainly to plug in block heaters for the winter. I guess they aren't that widespread, but I couldn't see why these couldn't be done in newer developments.


----------



## andrewf

like_to_retire said:


> There are many thousands of people who live in the downtown areas of cities in houses and row houses that were built before they invented cars, so there are no driveways. I know, because I did that for at least a decade. These people park on the street by purchasing parking permits year round. A bit of a pain, but workable.
> 
> What do you propose for these people?
> 
> ltr


There are different solutions. One that has been experimented with in other countries is leveraging the excess power provision to street lighting (since they were upgraded to LEDs) for curbside chargers. It's not an impossible problem! And EV adoption won't be stopped because the charging solutions for every user aren't immediately clear.


----------



## m3s

andrewf said:


> It's not an impossible problem!


I remember when they had to bury all the fuel tanks underground at rural gas stations in the '90s. Heaven forbid the wizardry rocket science required to charge a car in 2021












> A combined parking meter/battery charger station includes a detachable remote receiver to inform the vehicle operator of charge-level status and other information. Upon sufficient payment or credit, the remote receiver is released so that it may be carried away from the charging station. The receiver includes a visual or audible indicator which may keep the operator apprised of charge status, time remaining on the meter or account information. The audible alert may be used to indicate a full charge or to warn that little time is remaining, or other conditions. Communication from the station to the receiver may either be directly from the station or, alternatively, a station may communicate with a central office associated with a plurality of the stations and broadcast may be made therefrom.


----------



## MrMatt

like_to_retire said:


> There are many thousands of people who live in the downtown areas of cities in houses and row houses that were built before they invented cars, so there are no driveways. I know, because I did that for at least a decade. These people park on the street by purchasing parking permits year round. A bit of a pain, but workable.
> 
> What do you propose for these people?
> 
> ltr


Don't live there.
If the location is incompatible with your lifestyle desires, don't live in that location.

I'd love to live in a different place for a variety of reasons, however once I consider all the factors I chose the places with the best tradeoffs for me.


----------



## AltaRed

Or live there and don't buy an EV. There will still be plenty of ICE vehicles around in 2050. Most of them will be about 10-20 years old by then though which, however, is not particularly old age for an ICE any more.


----------



## m3s

They'll just tax the **** out of gas and ICE registration

Insurance will probably be way cheaper on connected vehicles

Alberta will look like a former soviet country


----------



## agent99

AltaRed said:


> Most of them will be about 10-20 years old by then though which, however, is not particularly old age for an ICE any more.


My preferred daily driver, is 36 years old. I won't be around, but if cared for, it should still be running in 2050. That is, if they are still selling diesel! Maybe diesels will make a comeback if they use renewable vegetable oils? Why NOT use renewable instead of fossil fuels in ICEs? They may need a bit of development to make them a reliable year round fuel that does not need blending with fossil based diesel.


----------



## MrMatt

agent99 said:


> My preferred daily driver, is 36 years old. I won't be around, but if cared for, it should still be running in 2050. That is, if they are still selling diesel! Maybe diesels will make a comeback if they use renewable vegetable oils? Why NOT use renewable instead of fossil fuels in ICEs? They may need a bit of development to make them a reliable year round fuel that does not need blending with fossil based diesel.


Because renewable or not, they want to go electric.


----------



## sags

Yea.......I remember when the new homes all had electric coils in the ceilings to heat the house.

The price of hydro went up and people couldn't sell the homes. The heating coils also cracked the ceilings.

Always some new fangled thing gets replaced by the next new fangled thing.

By the time there is any worthwhile adoption of EVs.......the next best thing will be all the rage.


----------



## m3s

So when's the last time you rode a horse drawn carriage to work?


----------



## AltaRed

There will be a reasonable percentage of ICEs on the road in 2040-2050, particularly if they are distinctive and not looking like Bratwurst sausage 4 door sedans. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of '50s-'70s classics still on the road in the BC Interior. Today's Z4 would fit in very nicely in 2040.


----------



## m3s

There's hundreds if not thousands of horse drawn carriages in Ontario in the Mennonite towns too

I just hope it will be a manual z4. Then it will be millennial proof


----------



## andrewf

agent99 said:


> Why NOT use renewable instead of fossil fuels in ICEs?


We really should want to get off ICE altogether. Aside from any climate/GHG concerns, burning stuff kills people. Particulate emissions and smog is inherent in burning stuff, and these kill people and make your kids dumber.


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> Yea.......I remember when the new homes all had electric coils in the ceilings to heat the house.
> 
> The price of hydro went up and people couldn't sell the homes. The heating coils also cracked the ceilings.
> 
> Always some new fangled thing gets replaced by the next new fangled thing.
> 
> By the time there is any worthwhile adoption of EVs.......the next best thing will be all the rage.


It's okay if you don't want to change sags. Old people become more rigid, society changes one funeral at a time (to paraphrase an aphorism about science).


----------



## Spudd

cliffsecord said:


> 110 V is ok when it's warm. Once it gets cold, all that energy is just used to try and get the battery warm enough to charge. Generally in winter 110 V is difficult charging for winters. On the coldest days you won't even get a charge.


I don't know if pure EV is different but I'm sure I've charged my PHEV from a 110V outlet in the winter and had no issues. I usually use a public level 2 charger to charge but sometimes if I'm traveling I'll use the outlet at a friend/family member's house to top up and it's been fine. With the pandemic it's been a while since I've traveled in winter but I'm sure I did it in the winter of 2019/2020 and it worked.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> We really should want to get off ICE altogether. Aside from any climate/GHG concerns, burning stuff kills people. Particulate emissions and smog is inherent in burning stuff, and these kill people and make your kids dumber.


It isn't going to happen totally. That is a case of idealism being unrealistic and not credible. It undermines the cause.

There will always be some ICEs somewhere plus emissions from manufactured byproducts for the 40-50 million barrels or so of oil per day we will still be producing/consuming in 2050. Not only that, we are always burning stuff with incomplete combustion, be it agricultural waste, building material waste, composting, pellet stove fuel, etc. Wood burning stoves in some BC valleys cause visibility issues and respiratory conditions in winter months. A-holes trying to live off the grid and all that.

If one really wants to reduce CO2 emissions, suppress consumerism. It is all the shite we demand and buy that is a key cause of CO2 emissions.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> If one really wants to reduce CO2 emissions, suppress consumerism. It is all the shite we demand and buy that is a key cause of CO2 emissions.


Regardless, ICE vehicles (at least on public roads) need to go. Your other points are whataboutism. Sure, they are also problems, but we need to get as much ICE power converted to electric as possible, particularly in populated areas. That includes things like construction and lawn care, which contribute disproportionately to pollution. Things like wood smoke should be addressed in due course as well. Unlike CO2, other emissions are localized. Ontario saw massive improvement in air quality after coal power plants were phased out.


----------



## Retired Peasant

Cutting back on flying would help too, but I don't see that happening any time soon.Should we give up flying for the sake of the climate?


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> Regardless, ICE vehicles (at least on public roads) need to go.


ICEs will never be legislated off the road nor will construction/lawn care equipment in totality. It can all be made illegal to produce and sell new ICEs at some point in time, and gasoline can be taxed extremely heavily at the pump, e.g. $20/l, but outright bans of existing product won't happen.

What I can realistically see happening is increasing use of taxes at the pump over a period of 10-20 years to economically strangle gasoline use. It can't be done too severely and too quickly without having the capacity to produce and support the alternatives like EVs. It will be a balancing act where the pendulum will ebb and flow (like Europe's current energy crisis) because public policy is sometimes out of sync with reality (incompetent politicians and even worse civil service competencies).

P.S. None of this will fully transpire in my remaining lifetime because I will logically be dead sometime between circa 2030 and 2045.


----------



## Spudd

AltaRed said:


> ICEs will never be legislated off the road nor will construction/lawn care equipment in totality. It can all be made illegal to produce and sell new ICEs at some point in time, and gasoline can be taxed extremely heavily at the pump, e.g. $20/l, but outright bans of existing product won't happen.
> 
> What I can realistically see happening is increasing use of taxes at the pump over a period of 10-20 years to economically strangle gasoline use. It can't be done too severely and too quickly without having the capacity to produce and support the alternatives like EVs. It will be a balancing act where the pendulum will ebb and flow (like Europe's current energy crisis) because public policy is sometimes out of sync with reality (incompetent politicians and even worse civil service competencies).


It's possible that waning demand for gasoline will cause gas stations to go out of business and therefore drive even more waning demand since it's now more inconvenient to fill up. This would be awfully far in the future, though, I would think.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> ICEs will never be legislated off the road nor will construction/lawn care equipment in totality. It can all be made illegal to produce and sell new ICEs at some point in time, and gasoline can be taxed extremely heavily at the pump, e.g. $20/l, but outright bans of existing product won't happen.
> 
> What I can realistically see happening is increasing use of taxes at the pump over a period of 10-20 years to economically strangle gasoline use. It can't be done too severely and too quickly without having the capacity to produce and support the alternatives like EVs. It will be a balancing act where the pendulum will ebb and flow (like Europe's current energy crisis) because public policy is sometimes out of sync with reality (incompetent politicians and even worse civil service competencies).
> 
> P.S. None of this will fully transpire in my remaining lifetime because I will logically be dead sometime between circa 2030 and 2045.


We didn't completely eliminate horses as a means of power/transportation either.

Lawn equipment should already be going EV, particularly for contractors or anyone who uses equipment extensively.


----------



## AltaRed

No question in my mind petrol stations will diminish in number and convenience over time. It has to be that way with vastly reduced petrol demand, but I doubt the remaining viable ones would forego an opportunity to have some petrol pumps, just like some today have EV charging stations. At least 2030 if not 2040 in my mind. I am betting I will still be driving my Mazda CX-5 in 2030 without any inconvenience, but maybe at $5 litre gasoline prices. That is a price I would still be willing to pay rather than spring $80k for a new EV at that time that would be replacing what I hope would still be a very practical vehicle.

I believe OECD countries are going to have to play it a bit coy, like sort of a horse race, with some edging ahead of others for awhile, then falling back because the policy changes impact their own economy too much in competition with the rest. IOW, Canada cannot impose overly drastic rates of change without hurting competitiveness and productivity relative to the USA. It will just tank the economy and drive investment elsewhere. Example: Canada could not unilaterally dictate the use of EV 18 wheelers without impacting our export/import trade severely.


----------



## cainvest

Spudd said:


> It's possible that waning demand for gasoline will cause gas stations to go out of business and therefore drive even more waning demand since it's now more inconvenient to fill up. This would be awfully far in the future, though, I would think.


In most cities I bet you could close down 50% of the gas stations and most wouldn't even care or notice.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> No question in my mind petrol stations will diminish in number and convenience over time. It has to be that way with vastly reduced petrol demand, but I doubt the remaining viable ones would forego an opportunity to have some petrol pumps, just like some today have EV charging stations. At least 2030 if not 2040 in my mind. I am betting I will still be driving my Mazda CX-5 in 2030 without any inconvenience, but maybe at $5 litre gasoline prices. That is a price I would still be willing to pay rather than spring $80k for a new EV at that time that would be replacing what I hope would still be a very practical vehicle.
> 
> I believe OECD countries are going to have to play it a bit coy, like sort of a horse race, with some edging ahead of others for awhile, then falling back because the policy changes impact their own economy too much in competition with the rest. IOW, Canada cannot impose overly drastic rates of change without hurting competitiveness and productivity relative to the USA. It will just tank the economy and drive investment elsewhere. Example: Canada could not unilaterally dictate the use of EV 18 wheelers without impacting our export/import trade severely.


Agreed. You might go from there being 10-15 gas stations in a town to just 1 or 2, and paying a big premium. On the bright side, ICE vehicles will have essentially zero resale value so you can always just buy another ICE vehicle for nearly free.

EV trucks are going to put diesel out of business relatively quickly, especially in short haul. That's without big increases in carbon taxes, etc.


----------



## like_to_retire

The problem with electric cars.

_“In Norway, there are more EVs per person than anywhere in the world and studies show that people have two cars — a (subsidized) EV car to go `virtue signalling’ and the real car for use for real stuff._

ltr


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> On the bright side, ICE vehicles will have essentially zero resale value so you can always just buy another ICE vehicle for nearly free.


Only if they fix the major shortcomings of EVs otherwise ICE will continue.


----------



## kcowan

andrewf said:


> Agreed. You might go from there being 10-15 gas stations in a town to just 1 or 2, and paying a big premium. On the bright side, ICE vehicles will have essentially zero resale value so you can always just buy another ICE vehicle for nearly free.


For a glimpse into the future, gas up your ICE in Manhattan. Find the underground parking that also has pumps. Anything is possible when driven by need. A big problem with EVs is that much of the demand is artificial due to government incentives.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> Agreed. You might go from there being 10-15 gas stations in a town to just 1 or 2, and paying a big premium. On the bright side, ICE vehicles will have essentially zero resale value so you can always just buy another ICE vehicle for nearly free.


Seriously, no one is going to care about locating 'fewer' gas stations. We have at least 11? of the stupid things in our community now (2 of them less than 5 years old). It is over retailed and could and should drop to 2-3 and still be convenient. There are that many suitably positioned to be good EV charging stations too.

I could care less that my current 2007 AWD luxury sports sedan is likely not worth much north of $4000. It is worth 3 times that in drive-ability, comfort and performance to me. That is the case with most vehicles that age.


----------



## m3s

AltaRed said:


> ICEs will never be legislated off the road nor will construction/lawn care equipment in totality. It can all be made illegal to produce and sell new ICEs at some point in time, and gasoline can be taxed extremely heavily at the pump, e.g. $20/l, but outright bans of existing product won't happen.


I remember using 2 stroke lawn mowers

Aren't those banned now? Man they were nice and light. Probably made me deaf at 13 but the smell was great


----------



## m3s

kcowan said:


> For a glimpse into the future, gas up your ICE in Manhattan. Find the underground parking that also has pumps. Anything is possible when driven by need. A big problem with EVs is that much of the demand is artificial due to government incentives.


EVs actually have impressive performance and economics to a lot of young people. The oil owned mass media is doing a good job of convincing many otherwise

If you mean price - try fueling up in Europe. I don't understand why you couldn't charge up underground even easier.


----------



## AltaRed

m3s said:


> I remember using 2 stroke lawn mowers
> 
> Aren't those banned now? Man they were nice and light. Probably made me deaf at 13 but the smell was great


There was a 4 stroke alternative that wasn't radically different. I really have no fear of my ICEs being banned, not within my lifetime anyway. That all said, I do expect I will likely own one EV at some point circa 2030 or 2035 before they take my DL away. No concern about it one way or another.


----------



## agent99

MrMatt said:


> Because renewable or not, they want to go electric.


So much talk about EVs, and not much about renewable fuels. 

However, there does seem to be quite a bit of work going on in this field. In particular for fuels for the large diesels that power trucks, heavy machinery and ships. Even jet fuel is essentially a light diesel that presumably could be from renewables. 









The Potential – and Challenges – of Renewable Diesel Fuel for Heavy-Duty Vehicles


GNA's technical team provides insight into an emerging replacement fuel, renewable diesel, including the benefits, costs, and opportunities for America's transportation sector.




www.gladstein.org


----------



## Eder

Once I left N America on my sailboat almost all people used 2 stroke motors for their dingy's...1/2 the weight twice the power. Pretty sure EV's are not high on most of the worlds list...they're more interested in affording a carton of Marlborough rather than rolling their own.
We live in a bubble.


----------



## MrMatt

Eder said:


> Once I left N America on my sailboat almost all people used 2 stroke motors for their dingy's...1/2 the weight twice the power. Pretty sure EV's are not high on most of the worlds list...they're more interested in affording a carton of Marlborough rather than rolling their own.
> We live in a bubble.


First world problem.
When people run out of real problems, they create new ones.


----------



## andrewf

agent99 said:


> So much talk about EVs, and not much about renewable fuels.
> 
> However, there does seem to be quite a bit of work going on in this field. In particular for fuels for the large diesels that power trucks, heavy machinery and ships. Even jet fuel is essentially a light diesel that presumably could be from renewables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Potential – and Challenges – of Renewable Diesel Fuel for Heavy-Duty Vehicles
> 
> 
> GNA's technical team provides insight into an emerging replacement fuel, renewable diesel, including the benefits, costs, and opportunities for America's transportation sector.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.gladstein.org


Most synthetic fuels have not panned out. It is also inherently inefficient (as is hydrogen) compared to battery electric. There may be applications where it will make sense, such as aircraft, ocean shipping, rocketry.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

Synthetics vs hydrogen vs oil vs electrification:

The winner will be determined by the governments as one of them will have to benefit them the most. 
It will have little to do with being "green".


----------



## bgc_fan

Interesting initiative for Hydro One. There's going to be limited takers I imagine, but it's a way to add some resiliency to the electrical grid by using the vehicle batteries as backup to the grid.








Hydro One and Peak Power launch innovative new pilot program to enhance power resiliency using electric vehicle chargers | AltEnergyMag


The program leverages two-way Vehicle-to-Home charging technology to provide back-up power during outages



www.altenergymag.com


----------



## andrewf

Two way is not even necessary to get a lot of grid stability benefits. Merely being able to control the rate of charge of batteries in BEVs (one direction only) provides huge stabilization benefits.


----------



## off.by.10

That last thing I'd want in an outage is to find out I can no longer leave because my car's battery has been drained to keep the lights on. Just give me a decent inverter on the car so I can run an extension cord to my fridge and freezer. They use little power and everything else I can do without in an emergency.


----------



## Eder

I think a small Honda 2000 generator makes a lot more sense in an emergency to maintain your fridge, freezer & run your furnace.


----------



## bgc_fan

off.by.10 said:


> That last thing I'd want in an outage is to find out I can no longer leave because my car's battery has been drained to keep the lights on. Just give me a decent inverter on the car so I can run an extension cord to my fridge and freezer. They use little power and everything else I can do without in an emergency.


Well, things have to be put into perspective. You can assume a 50-70 kWh battery in a car, which is about what is average. How much electricity do you use in a day? If you reduce things like AC or electric heating and turn off all unnecessary appliances/electrical loads, I imagine you get it down to less than 5 kWh each day. If you've got a power failure that long, then there are other issues.


----------



## m3s

Every house should have a small battery pack imo

Then we could switch to DC appliances. Most common electronics are already DC with those annoying power bricks. They get warm because they're wasting energy converting AC to DC. Inverters are a waste of energy but we could use them for the legacy AC appliances

Smart thermostats already let my local power providers to intelligently manage AC power spikes. They pre-cool my house ahead of a power surge and then rebate me for letting them do that. It would also cover all those short power disruptions

We could do the same with smart battery packs and then let people use the energy when they want. This reduces the major problem of wasted power production


----------



## cainvest

m3s said:


> Every house should have a small battery pack imo


I'd agree if one can use solar for the battery power otherwise small fuel generators are a much better option and way cheaper for backup power.


----------



## m3s

cainvest said:


> I'd agree if one can use solar for the battery power otherwise small fuel generators are a much better option and way cheaper for backup power.


Backup power is a separate issue. You could also have a DC generator to charge the power bank. Maybe then you could turn it off at night

The power bank is to smooth out the power demand. US is already moving towards a grid energy storage. Having some of that storage at the house would allow us to convert to DC at the house. This would make solar power more efficient because it is DC, as are more electronics today. You can charge the battery bank however you want and it regulates the power for everything else (much better for electronics)

Vehicles, sailboats, off grid homes are already DC. You charge a battery bank however you want and then power everything of the DC bank


----------



## cainvest

m3s said:


> Having some of that storage at the house would allow us to convert to DC at the house.


What would be the cost to convert home wiring from AC to DC?


----------



## m3s

cainvest said:


> What would be the cost to convert home wiring from AC to DC?


Obviously not really worth it to convert. You would need to change all the major appliances to off grid/portable DC models

It could happen naturally over time as solar power, Tesla powerwalls and parking huge EV power banks in the garage become the norm

Eventually someone will capitalism on the fact that all this AC to DC storage to AC inverter to AC outlet to DC power brick to DC electronic is a huge inefficiency

Unless you like to heat the house with power bricks, invertors and incandescent light bulbs


----------



## Eder

Theres a reason we use alternating current...it would have been better if we chose 220v rather than 120v but 12v or even 24v DC in a house is lol for many reasons.


----------



## m3s

Eder said:


> Theres a reason we use alternating current...it would have been better if we chose 220v rather than 120v but 12v or even 24v DC in a house is lol for many reasons.


Why not a mix of both like a sailboat?

USB ports for DC and 220v AC like in Europe. All the portable devices are already DC but we plug them into AC with power bricks

AC is better for distribution which is inefficient in itself. Distributed power storage and generation is already happening


----------



## m3s

Oh you edited to specify the DC voltage issue

Ideally a house would be higher voltage and then get reduced 24v, 12v, 5v, 3v etc A challenge for sure

Appliances could be higher voltage (we already do this for stoves, EV chargers, dryer?) then the wall outlets would be lower


----------



## MrMatt

cainvest said:


> What would be the cost to convert home wiring from AC to DC?


Not bad, but it's a horrible idea at comparable power levels.

High voltage DC arcs a lot, and low voltage DC would require really thick wires to handle the current.

For low power you could simply run through the exact same wiring.


----------



## agent99

cainvest said:


> What would be the cost to convert home wiring from AC to DC?


You would first need to choose a voltage. 48V DC is the highest "safe" DC voltage, but not many devices would use that. Devices that would use 12V are common, but then the current would be 10X the equivalent A/C current. 

Existing house wiring is designed for 15A (20A max), so at 20A, largest load on a single circuit would be 240Watts for 12V or 960watts for 48V. Some appliances would need 120V or 240V and need inverters but then you have a large efficiency drop to deal with.

So basically, just saying - it is more than a wiring upgrade. Probably replace many devices and appliances too. Hard to imagine any good reason to convert a home to DC. If you live in an RV or a boat, you work around the shortcomings of low voltage DC 

And can you charge your EV off 12v


----------



## andrewf

cainvest said:


> I'd agree if one can use solar for the battery power otherwise small fuel generators are a much better option and way cheaper for backup power.


A small battery could be used to shift off-peak power for use in peak periods. Solar is great because it can keep you going indefinitely during severe weather.


----------



## bgc_fan

andrewf said:


> A small battery could be used to shift off-peak power for use in peak periods. Solar is great because it can keep you going indefinitely during severe weather.


I'd argue not. Severe weather generally isn't going to be clear, sunny skies. Of course, time of year is going to impact as well.


----------



## like_to_retire

andrewf said:


> A small battery could be used to shift off-peak power for use in peak periods.


My hydro company sent me a survey this month to fill out, and I was surprised at some of the questions. They were putting out feelers as to how customers felt about installing battery systems in their homes in the future to accommodate charging of electric vehicles. 

There were a ton of futuristic pie-in-the-sky questions involving the use of home batteries and/or the electric vehicle battery to ameliorate demands and even as far as using the car to run appliances in the home. 

It was a bit of an eye opener, and I can see that utilities are definitely thinking about the problem of having everyone plugging in their car at night and the strain on the system.

ltr


----------



## andrewf

bgc_fan said:


> I'd argue not. Severe weather generally isn't going to be clear, sunny skies. Of course, time of year is going to impact as well.


The problem is not so much the severe weather, it is the days afterward while the lines are still down. Quebec had lots of beautiful sun following the ice storm.


----------



## andrewf

like_to_retire said:


> My hydro company sent me a survey this month to fill out, and I was surprised at some of the questions. They were putting out feelers as to how customers felt about installing battery systems in their homes in the future to accommodate charging of electric vehicles.
> 
> There were a ton of futuristic pie-in-the-sky questions involving the use of home batteries and/or the electric vehicle battery to ameliorate demands and even as far as using the car to run appliances in the home.
> 
> It was a bit of an eye opener, and I can see that utilities are definitely thinking about the problem of having everyone plugging in their car at night and the strain on the system.
> 
> ltr


I think it is not so much a problem as it is an opportunity. If they can shave peaks and fill in valleys they can improve the utilization of their transmission and generation infrastructure. In Ontario, we were trying to build power plants in the GTA (Oakville gas plant) because we didn't have enough transmission infrastructure to handle peak loads. These days, utilities could just deploy batteries (utility scale or distributed at homes/businesses) and charge them up overnight when they have spare transmission capacity.


----------



## bgc_fan

andrewf said:


> The problem is not so much the severe weather, it is the days afterward while the lines are still down. Quebec had lots of beautiful sun following the ice storm.


It all depends on your setup and battery capacity. Someone who sized just to reduce their hydro bill will probably not last long, but someone who sized to be off-grid wouldn't have an issue to begin with. For example, if the average setup is 5 kW, that can take care of 50-75% of your needs: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/solar-power-starter-guide-1.4789636. At the same time, you'll be draining any battery stores to make up the remainder. There's also some efficiency loss.

I'm just pointing out that unless you are completely off-grid, chances are, you aren't going to be self-sufficient for very long, unless you had a large battery storage that was full before the event. Say, one sized to run your house for a couple of days to make up for some intermittent solar generation.


----------



## off.by.10

bgc_fan said:


> Well, things have to be put into perspective. You can assume a 50-70 kWh battery in a car, which is about what is average. How much electricity do you use in a day? If you reduce things like AC or electric heating and turn off all unnecessary appliances/electrical loads, I imagine you get it down to less than 5 kWh each day. If you've got a power failure that long, then there are other issues.


My summer time average is 18 kWh a day. Coldest winter months are 80 kWh and the coldest days I think 100-120 kWh. An outage late at night could drain a car battery before morning.

Sure, you can spend extra money and have the unecessary stuff cut off automatically. But then what's the point? If I end up with "fridge and freezer", I might as well hook them up with an extension cord and save thousands of dollars on installing the full V2H system.


----------



## bgc_fan

off.by.10 said:


> My summer time average is 18 kWh a day. Coldest winter months are 80 kWh and the coldest days I think 100-120 kWh. An outage late at night could drain a car battery before morning.
> 
> Sure, you can spend extra money and have the unecessary stuff cut off automatically. But then what's the point? If I end up with "fridge and freezer", I might as well hook them up with an extension cord and save thousands of dollars on installing the full V2H system.


I guess you must be using electrical heating, so that's obviously a difference. There are some vehicles that do have the vehicle to load system, so yes, if you wanted to you can use that to back up your fridge and freezer. OTOH, unless you currently have a backup generator, you wouldn't be any worse off than now.

Edit: I'll point out that more than likely you can set a limit on how much the vehicle will feed back to prevent a battery drain to zero.


----------



## AltaRed

Both renewable power and EVs have made significant progress in the USA in the last 10 years. The momentum will continue to build as more EV brands and models are produced. This momentum occurred despite resistance from the Trump administration. State policies hold considerable influence much to the angst of Washington.


----------



## MrMatt

AltaRed said:


> Both renewable power and EVs have made significant progress in the USA in the last 10 years. The momentum will continue to build as more EV brands and models are produced. This momentum occurred despite resistance from the Trump administration. State policies hold considerable influence much to the angst of Washington.


The thing is, once EVs are seen as better, people will switch.


----------



## AltaRed

MrMatt said:


> The thing is, once EVs are seen as better, people will switch.


For their next vehicle purchase, or when convenience and/or cost becomes the driver to make the new EV purchase.

The current average age for American autos on the road is 12.1 years as of 2021 and I don't expect that to change much even as EV momentum takes hold. Part of it is affordability and the presence of 7 year auto loans. Another part is average age has been increasing for the last 20 years due to better reliability and quality of newer ICE vehicles. I don't expect any of that to decrease much.

A good portion of ICEs purchased in 2030 will still be on the road in 2040 and beyond.

Added: Someone should tell India they are foolish with oil refinery capacity expansion. Another more global scenario.


----------



## HappilyRetired

MrMatt said:


> The thing is, once EVs are seen as better, people will switch.


Just like any other product.


----------



## m3s

So apparently the fast chargers are DC chargers. They convert AC > DC rather than the car converting AC > DC itself for the battery

So if people start installing batteries at home for grid storage or solar storage (far more popular in the US as they have more sun..)

Then you should be able to charge your EV directly from the DC storage. Otherwise you lose on DC storage > AC charger > DC storage

Again I don't think most Canadians realize how fast this is picking up in the US. Exactly like amazon was before Canadians caught on


----------



## Mukhang pera




----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> So apparently the fast chargers are DC chargers. They convert AC > DC rather than the car converting AC > DC itself for the battery


Makes sense, where do you think all that heat is going to go? Might as well put the cooling system in the stationary part.



> So if people start installing batteries at home for grid storage or solar storage (far more popular in the US as they have more sun..)
> 
> Then you should be able to charge your EV directly from the DC storage. Otherwise you lose on DC storage > AC charger > DC storage


Would make sense then you don't lose the AC-DC conversion losses twice.



> Again I don't think most Canadians realize how fast this is picking up in the US. Exactly like amazon was before Canadians caught on


I don't understand the point of that statement.
I think those that care about such things know, and those that don't.

As far as Amazon, I think Canadians got interested about the same time as Americans, possibly even a bit sooner.
The time of course being the introduction of Amazon Prime, which was different in each country.

Amazon without prime just isn't all that exciting.


----------



## AltaRed

agent99 said:


> So much talk about EVs, and not much about renewable fuels.
> 
> However, there does seem to be quite a bit of work going on in this field. In particular for fuels for the large diesels that power trucks, heavy machinery and ships. Even jet fuel is essentially a light diesel that presumably could be from renewables.


Plus some effort by the Japanese to extend longevity of the ICE with synthetics. May have niche applications.


----------



## m3s

MrMatt said:


> As far as Amazon, I think Canadians got interested about the same time as Americans, possibly even a bit sooner.
> The time of course being the introduction of Amazon Prime, which was different in each country.
> 
> Amazon without prime just isn't all that exciting.


Definitely not

I work with many americans and was travelling to US for work back then. US was way ahead. Of course amazon was also behind in Canada and still is. I remember the sentiment on here was about the same as it was towards EVs. I see more EVs on the road and in the parking lots here all the time. Most Canadians do not see this day to day adoption and trend

We're about 5 years behind. Some regions more than others of course


----------



## AltaRed

Half of Canada's EV registrations are in BC and Quebec for Q2 2021. The added advantage is that essentially 100% of the electricity generated in the 2 provinces is renewable (primarily hydro).


----------



## zinfit

Toyota has some vehicles which have plug in electric /hybrid. The electric is good for 60 miles which is great for commuting. For longer trips you have the benefit of a gas engine.


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> Definitely not
> 
> I work with many americans and was travelling to US for work back then. US was way ahead. Of course amazon was also behind in Canada and still is. I remember the sentiment on here was about the same as it was towards EVs. I see more EVs on the road and in the parking lots here all the time. Most Canadians do not see this day to day adoption and trend
> 
> We're about 5 years behind. Some regions more than others of course


I'm not quite sure what you're talking about.
Amazon Canada is a different product than Amazon USA, and the interest reflects that, because they're different products. When Amazon Canada offers comparable services to Amazon USA, I'd assume the same or higher update here.


How do you get 5 years behind on Electric cars?








Data for Q1 2021 shows rise in EV adoption to 4.6 per cent, as sales of hybrids double 


StatsCan analysis shows Quebec and B.C. lead Canada in overall ZEV registrations while Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick and PEI saw biggest jump




electricautonomy.ca












US: All-Electric Car Market Share Expands To 2.5% In H1 2021


The U.S. all-electric car market quickly expands this year, although it still has a lot to do to catch up with Europe and China.




insideevs.com





Q1 2021 was 3.34% BEV in Canada, and only 2.5% BEV in the USA.

So, I'm curious how we're "behind", maybe in 5 years we'll buy fewer EVs?

I personally think such metrics kind of miss the nuance, but it's odd that you'd say we're "5 years behind", since our ratio of BEV's is higher than the US. 

I think you've got some weird ideas that clearly aren't supported by the data as I see it.


----------



## m3s

AltaRed said:


> Half of Canada's EV registrations are in BC and Quebec for Q2 2021. The added advantage is that essentially 100% of the electricity generated in the 2 provinces is renewable (primarily hydro).


Yea I was gonna say.

Stats must be skewed by region because there's very little EV adoption where I've been lately.


----------



## cainvest

AltaRed said:


> Half of Canada's EV registrations are in BC and Quebec for Q2 2021. The added advantage is that essentially 100% of the electricity generated in the 2 provinces is renewable (primarily hydro).


And I think those are the only two provinces that give out EV rebates.


----------



## Eder

Heres where EV sales stand at the beginning of this year in Canada.




https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FEHyQSpUcAcrhKd?format=jpg&name=900x900


----------



## m3s

Eder said:


> Heres where EV sales stand at the beginning of this year in Canada.


Yea that's interesting. West coast states are pretty high

I'm in a region with pretty high EV rates but what I've seen in Canada was pretty low. I see more Tesla's on the way to work and around the neighborhood than are registered in some provinces

Alberta didn't even make the list. Probably worse than a Leafs hat in Montreal


----------



## Mortgage u/w

AltaRed said:


> Half of Canada's EV registrations are in BC and Quebec for Q2 2021. The added advantage is that essentially 100% of the electricity generated in the 2 provinces is renewable (primarily hydro).


It helps that BC and especially QC offer the largest rebate for EV purchases.


----------



## AltaRed

Mortgage u/w said:


> It helps that BC and especially QC offer the largest rebate for EV purchases.


Well, of course it does. That's the way this climate thingy is going to play out for awhile at least. On the backs of the taxpayer! Some taxpayers will gain of course in personal health, e.g. those who will also get cleaner air in major urban areas. Reduction in real pollutants is probably worth more than the reduced CO2 emissions.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

AltaRed said:


> Well, of course it does. That's the way this climate thingy is going to play out for awhile at least. On the backs of the taxpayer! Some taxpayers will gain of course in personal health, e.g. those who will also get cleaner air in major urban areas. Reduction in real pollutants is probably worth more than the reduced CO2 emissions.


Personally, I think its all "smoke in mirrors". Governments were lobbied by the car manufactures for their benefit only - not for the sake of "saving the planet". It lines up with their climate promises so they went with it.

There is a lot more the government can do to reduce CO2 emissions, but they are not going for it cause it does not benefit them. Once they find the new replacement for oil - by that I mean their new source of income, that's what will stick. Maybe its electrification, maybe not.


----------



## cainvest

Mortgage u/w said:


> Personally, I think its all "smoke in mirrors". Governments were lobbied by the car manufactures for their benefit only - not for the sake of "saving the planet". It lines up with their climate promises so they went with it.


And I wonder if some years down the road we'll hear "we need to reduce foreign dependency on battery materials" from the governments.


----------



## sags

Ontario is spending a lot of money on new highways and public transit. EV rebates aren't a priority for the Ford government.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> Ontario is spending a lot of money on new highways and public transit. EV rebates aren't a priority for the Ford government.


That's good. I'm not interested in buying fancy electric vehicles for other people. 

ltr


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Ontario is spending a lot of money on new highways and public transit. EV rebates aren't a priority for the Ford government.


Which is the right thing.

EV's are still mostly luxury cars for rich people. Low and low/middle income people typically use public transit, or buy older used cars. 

If you want to go green, ditch the car and go to public transit.


----------



## damian13ster

Taking from the poor and giving to the rich is the MO of the government.
I can't afford giving PM private island vacation so I don't get 50mln of government money. Simple.
EV rebates are another program taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich.


----------



## andrewf

damian13ster said:


> Taking from the poor and giving to the rich is the MO of the government.
> I can't afford giving PM private island vacation so I don't get 50mln of government money. Simple.
> EV rebates are another program taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich.


What about O&G sector subsidies?


----------



## damian13ster

andrewf said:


> What about O&G sector subsidies?


I am not in a support of any subsidies


----------



## HappilyRetired

andrewf said:


> What about O&G sector subsidies?


You're referring to basic tax write offs that all businesses are able to use, including all renewable energy businesses?

The government has never cut me a cheque for buying a car, but they will if I install a solar panel. Those are actual subsidies.


----------



## Eder

Just rented a Hyundai hybrid...battery at 12% driving from Terminal 1 to Terminal 3 in Hogtown....lol piece of sh_t


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> What about O&G sector subsidies?


This is primarily a red herring and is used inappropriately by almost anyone with an angle. As per post #706, the industry mostly does not get any more writeoffs (tax credits) than any other business/industry . They get DD&A capital allowances as all industry does, they get to write off operating expenses including the cost of dry holes that have been drilled and reclaimed, and they get to deduct royalties paid to provincial governments (or individuals) with mineral rights as an operating expense (correctly so). The assertion of fossil fuel subsidies is an idea/concept that has been abused more than anything I can imagine.

The only angle I am aware of that is in play in some instances will be the schedule for DD&A. Governments incentivize certain businesses/industries on a regular basis to invest capital by granting accelerated DD&A writeoffs, e.g. a 5 year schedule rather than 10 years, which reduces the tax bill. Should the O&G industry be denied the standard capital write off schedule? Do they currently enjoy an accelerated write off schedule that could be trimmed (and give governments the ability to say they have eliminated subsidies)? Should they penalize the O&G industry by slowing/extending the capital write off schedule? I am sure Ottawa in particular will find something they can 'penalize' the industry for so that they can claim they have eliminated subsidies in the industry.

P.S. In the specific case of Canada, the oil sands back in the late '90s did negotiate an accelerated capital writeoff schedule to reduce the near term tax burden of long lead capital projects and that allowed a number of mining projects in particular to get built. For an investor/banker, they need to minimize 'cash-in-red' balances to make investments, and they need to try and get back in the black within about 10 years of operation. I suspect this regime remains in place for new builds and that is what will be targeted going forward. It is more complicated than what I just articulated but that is the general gist of it. My team used that new fiscal regime in the late '90s to generate economics for certain oil sands projects at the time.

Another incentive scheme used worldwide is to provide royalty credits for marginal O&G producing wells to keep them producing rather than prematurely shutting them down and reclaiming them. This is an actual fiscal advantage to both the O&G industry and governments because it delays new capital investment needed to drill new wells to keep production up. The O&G industry wins by not having to prematurely invest new capital and governments win by not having to provide DD&A allowances on that new capital and to keep jobs. It is probably wrong to kill this incentive because it is in the global interest to avoid premature new development. IOW, it is like an old car. It is better NOT to manufacture a new vehicle with its impacts on the environment than to maintain that older vehicle longer.


----------



## ian

No. Definitely no yet. We live in Calgary. Not unusual for us, pre covid, to jump in the car and drive straight though to Vancouver. 10 hours. And on occasion driving north to Forth McMurray. 7/8 hours.

The second part of the puzzle is delays en route. Constructions, accidents, etc. This week all routes were blocked. Numerous people spent 8,10 hours stuck in their vehicles. Cold, snowy roads. Some people were stranded overnight. Some of them in areas without cell coverage

Would we want to be stuck with a run down battery on one of those roads? Without cell coverage. No. Electric is fine for now if you are only running a car in the city. At least for us.


----------



## andrewf

HappilyRetired said:


> You're referring to basic tax write offs that all businesses are able to use, including all renewable energy businesses?
> 
> The government has never cut me a cheque for buying a car, but they will if I install a solar panel. Those are actual subsidies.


Massive unfunded liabilities for well capping and decommissioning.


----------



## Mechanic

Last time I looked, a Hyundai EV was $20k more than the same model with ICE. I wonder how long to break even when you drive 10-15k a year ? I'm not really a fan of the Hyundai, I'd like one of those new Lucid's much more


----------



## HappilyRetired

Let's look at how much tax is collected from a 60 liter gas tank fill in Ontario at $1.40 per liter:

14.7 cents per liter fuel tax = $8.82
15% excise and GST per liter- $8.40
carbon tax 8.84 (%??) - $7.42
sales tax 13% - 10.92

total - $35.56

The government take on an $84 fill is $35.56 (42%). A tank a week is $1,850 per year per car. How will that revenue be replaced if everyone has an EV? Maybe every EV sold requires an $1,850 annual surcharge to recoup the lost revenue?


----------



## Mukhang pera

ian said:


> No. Definitely no yet. We live in Calgary. Not unusual for us, pre covid, to jump in the car and drive straight though to Vancouver. 10 hours. And on occasion driving north to Forth McMurray. 7/8 hours.
> 
> The second part of the puzzle is delays en route. Constructions, accidents, etc. This week all routes were blocked. Numerous people spent 8,10 hours stuck in their vehicles. Cold, snowy roads. Some people were stranded overnight. Some of them in areas without cell coverage
> 
> Would we want to be stuck with a run down battery on one of those roads? Without cell coverage. No. Electric is fine for now if you are only running a car in the city. At least for us.


Back at post #308 I expressed similar concerns about being stuck with a run down battery. In the responses that followed, I was told, in effect, that can't happen. So, fear not!


----------



## agent99

HappilyRetired said:


> Let's look at how much tax is collected from a 60 liter gas tank fill in Ontario at $1.40 per liter:
> 
> 14.7 cents per liter fuel tax = $8.82
> 15% excise and GST per liter- $8.40
> carbon tax 8.84 (%??) - $7.42
> sales tax 13% - 10.92
> 
> total - $35.56
> 
> The government take on an $84 fill is $35.56 (42%). A tank a week is $1,850 per year per car. How will that revenue be replaced if everyone has an EV? Maybe every EV sold requires an $1,850 annual surcharge to recoup the lost revenue?


We do pay tax and other overhead charges on electricity.
To work out a comparison, an example could be: Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid Rated at 20.2 Kwh/100km ($1.14 tax, etc) in electric mode or 6.7L/100km using engine. (taxes $3.97). I included delivery charges in electricity upcharge.

No doubt, with EVs, governments will be getting less revenue from energy for transportation. Not significant with so few EVs (as % of total vehicles) on the road for the foreseeable future.

Governments also provide cash incentives to buy EVs - all of these EV promotion costs have to be covered by the rest of us taxpayers! But who minds that - shouldn't I help my neighbor buy and charge his Tesla?


----------



## andrewf

HappilyRetired said:


> Let's look at how much tax is collected from a 60 liter gas tank fill in Ontario at $1.40 per liter:
> 
> 14.7 cents per liter fuel tax = $8.82
> 15% excise and GST per liter- $8.40
> carbon tax 8.84 (%??) - $7.42
> sales tax 13% - 10.92
> 
> total - $35.56
> 
> The government take on an $84 fill is $35.56 (42%). A tank a week is $1,850 per year per car. How will that revenue be replaced if everyone has an EV? Maybe every EV sold requires an $1,850 annual surcharge to recoup the lost revenue?


It's 24.7 (14.7 provincial, 10 federal) cents/L excise tax, 8.84 cents per litre carbon tax, and 13% HST. That makes 9.66 HST plus 20.12 for excise and carbon tax. 35% tax overall.


----------



## andrewf

Mukhang pera said:


> Back at post #308 I expressed similar concerns about being stuck with a run down battery. In the responses that followed, I was told, in effect, that can't happen. So, fear not!


It's similar to being stuck with a gas car with low fuel. An EV with a charged battery can run the climate for a long time, especially if you are being conservative. You should use seat warmers rather than heat the cabin to stay warm. As always, you should have a blanket in the car.


----------



## Mukhang pera

andrewf said:


> It's similar to being stuck with a gas car with low fuel. An EV with a charged battery can run the climate for a long time, especially if you are being conservative. You should use seat warmers rather than heat the cabin to stay warm. As always, you should have a blanket in the car.


Good idea about seat warmers. We have one older vehicle that lacks those. But then, that vehicle stays on an island where, at worst, we can probably walk home, about 10 miles, at the furthest we are likely to get from home by road.

We use a newer gasoline-powered pickup truck for the rest of our driving off-island, and we have some gear for emergencies, including blankets, waterproof matches, candles, headlamps, first aid kit, battery booster pack, jumper cables, bottled water and a box of "Kirkland" nut bars from Costco. The water and bars get changed a few times a year. Also in the lot is a quart of diesel. Diesel will help start a fire in even the wettest conditions. It all sits in a small compartment in the truck box, which has a canopy.


----------



## peterk

andrewf said:


> Massive unfunded liabilities for well capping and decommissioning.


What does that have to do with (imaginary) subsidies to O&G?

And I'd point out that resource extraction industry - more than any other industries - is subjected to decades long planning, decommissioning and reclamation requirements that would bankrupt most other industries if they were held to the same, ill-defined standards. With completely nebulous "future liabilities", described as however the government want to definite it with popular language du jour, the O & G and Mining sectors gets abused with the land lease concept and they just have to take it.

Imagine if a subdivision developer needed to provide plans and funding for the eventual demolition of houses and roads, 100+ years in the future, because everything goes back to nature eventually, right? Someone's gotta pay for it... Do those Tesla factories need to provide plans and funding for their complete demolition and remediation of the landscape when the factory gets shut down 70+ years from now? That's part of the expense of business... Is the California government demanding funds segregation from Mr. Musk to grout in those silly hyperloop tunnels when they eventually become decommissioned some day? (need to planning ahead you know). I don't think they are...


----------



## AltaRed

Andrew has been suckered (drinking the kool-aid) into thinking that financially viable companies get to walk from proper decommissioning and reclamation. Which as you point out is not true. Viable companies have always had to decommission and decontaminate sites and seek/obtain reclamation certificates. Companies spend money on this every year in their operating budgets. The tragedy is what gets left behind from insolvent and bankrupt companies which is the case in any industrial activity.

What does need to happen is for provinces to require higher reclamation bonds so that IF the company goes bankrupt, there are more funds in escrow to pay for clean up. Additionally, I think laws are being changed to bring environmental reclamation responsibilities higher in the seniority queue when a company is being wound up. This should apply across all industries.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> What about O&G sector subsidies?


Yeah, don't do that either.

I actually have an idea, stop handing out money to everyone. 
Instead, just cut taxes and focus on your actual job as the government.

If you weren't handing out billions to large corporations, and offshore interests they could lower taxes AND improve services.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

Mechanic said:


> Last time I looked, a Hyundai EV was $20k more than the same model with ICE. I wonder how long to break even when you drive 10-15k a year ? I'm not really a fan of the Hyundai, I'd like one of those new Lucid's much more


You have to consider your usage to properly assess. But on average, you will recover the extra cost rather quickly. 

Charging costs anywhere between $0.01 to $0.02 per km. 20,000 kms per year costs an average of $300 in electricity.

Then there is maintenance. We can say there is no maintenance for an EV. No oils or other liquids to change/maintain. No spark plugs. No emissions. Brakes last easily 6-7 years thanks to regenerative braking.

Finally, there are many incentives to driving an EV. Your initial government incentive for starters. Tolls are sometimes exempt. Insurance and plate costs are also reduced depending your province.


----------



## HappilyRetired

If it was really about being green they would give out free bus passes instead of subsidizing rich people's Teslas.


Mortgage u/w said:


> You have to consider your usage to properly assess. But on average, you will recover the extra cost rather quickly.
> 
> Charging costs anywhere between $0.01 to $0.02 per km. 20,000 kms per year costs an average of $300 in electricity.
> 
> Then there is maintenance. We can say there is no maintenance for an EV. No oils or other liquids to change/maintain. No spark plugs. No emissions. Brakes last easily 6-7 years thanks to regenerative braking.
> 
> Finally, there are many incentives to driving an EV. Your initial government incentive for starters. Tolls are sometimes exempt. Insurance and plate costs are also reduced depending your province.


Engines are so well designed these days that you can realistically say there is almost no maintenance for an ICE vehicle for the first 100,000 - 150,000 kms other than oil changes.


----------



## cainvest

Mortgage u/w said:


> You have to consider your usage to properly assess. But on average, you will recover the extra cost rather quickly.


A $20k difference in price for 15,000 kms a year ... my rough guess would be longer than an average person owns a new car.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

HappilyRetired said:


> If it was really about being green they would give out free bus passes instead of subsidizing rich people's Teslas.
> 
> Engines are so well designed these days that you can realistically say there is almost no maintenance for an ICE vehicle for the first 100,000 - 150,000 kms other than oil changes.


No maintenance for the first 100K-150K??
Oil changes, brakes, fluids, filters - those are inevitable. Everything else is variable - lots of moving parts in an engine that can go bad.



cainvest said:


> A $20k difference in price for 15,000 kms a year ... my rough guess would be longer than an average person owns a new car.


Federal incentive is $5k. Other incentives can be given provincially. 
Gas: 15000 kms per year on a car averaging 10L/100kms will consume $2250 per year considering gas at $1.50/L. EV will consume $200.

That's easily $15k within the first 5 years. Considering the other incentives and lack of maintenance, I'd say you recoup your costs rather quickly.


----------



## agent99

HappilyRetired said:


> Engines are so well designed these days that you can realistically say there is almost no maintenance for an ICE vehicle for the first 100,000 - 150,000 kms other than oil changes.


I would agree that maincost would be oil changes . Depending on driving habits, power train warranty and emissions warranty would cover any engine and drive train issues. Usually for 5 years, and if you need more you could get extended warranty and still be well under an EV's cost. I would definitely agree that your 100k km ICE maintenance will cost no more than an EV, except for 10 - 15 services. So, say, $1500 for the engine maintenance part (rest will be same on an EV). I would go so far as to say you should add $4000 (or maintenance and warranties) to the ICE cost so as to be equivalent to an EV for 6 or 7 years. If the difference in purchase cost was $20k, you need to compare savings on electricity cost vs gas to see if you could recoup $16k. I question some of the energy cost numbers above. Get actual costs for equivalent vehicles.

Probably hard to justify an EV on economics alone at present. But not on emissions in Canada where our electrical energy is quite clean.


----------



## cainvest

Mortgage u/w said:


> Federal incentive is $5k. Other incentives can be given provincially.
> Gas: 15000 kms per year on a car averaging 10L/100kms will consume $2250 per year considering gas at $1.50/L. EV will consume $200.
> 
> That's easily $15k within the first 5 years. Considering the other incentives and lack of maintenance, I'd say you recoup your costs rather quickly.


Based on BC Hydro estimates for a Hyundai Kona, EV = $342 / yr, ICE = $1720 for 15,000 kms.
So $1378 saved on gas per year gives you 10.8 years for payback on fuel savings alone for a $15k (after federal rebate) price increase. Also add additional EV costs (if needed) for putting a home level 2 charger and/or using charging stations.


----------



## andrewf

agent99 said:


> I would agree that maincost would be oil changes . Depending on driving habits, power train warranty and emissions warranty would cover any engine and drive train issues. Usually for 5 years, and if you need more you could get extended warranty and still be well under an EV's cost. I would definitely agree that your 100k km ICE maintenance will cost no more than an EV, except for 10 - 15 services. So, say, $1500 for the engine maintenance part (rest will be same on an EV). I would go so far as to say you should add $4000 (or maintenance and warranties) to the ICE cost so as to be equivalent to an EV for 6 or 7 years. If the difference in purchase cost was $20k, you need to compare savings on electricity cost vs gas to see if you could recoup $16k. I question some of the energy cost numbers above. Get actual costs for equivalent vehicles.
> 
> Probably hard to justify an EV on economics alone at present. But not on emissions in Canada where our electrical energy is quite clean.


I would say an ICE would need brake job in that time (first five years), that an EV would not. And a couple hundred bucks a year in oil changes.


----------



## damian13ster

andrewf said:


> I would say an ICE would need brake job in that time (first five years), that an EV would not. And a couple hundred bucks a year in oil changes.


I think the argument here is semantics. 
Oil changes run 30$-200$ a year, depending on the car, whether you do it yourself, etc.
Same with break job. DIY is extremely easy and very cheap. You can also go to official dealer and pay hundreds.
The payback is still around a decade or so. The argument made here is about using money of taxpayers to subsidize Musk, Rivian, and upper middle class buying new cars.
Lower middle class can't really afford that so they are stuck for now with older ICEs while their taxes go to the upper middle class, the rich, and billionaires


----------



## Mortgage u/w

damian13ster said:


> I think the argument here is semantics.
> Oil changes run 30$-200$ a year, depending on the car, whether you do it yourself, etc.
> Same with break job. DIY is extremely easy and very cheap. You can also go to official dealer and pay hundreds.
> The payback is still around a decade or so. The argument made here is about using money of taxpayers to subsidize Musk, Rivian, and upper middle class buying new cars.
> Lower middle class can't really afford that so they are stuck for now with older ICEs while their taxes go to the upper middle class, the rich, and billionaires


The argument can be made that the subsidy is paid by the taxes generated by the sale of the EVs. I would say your argument is also semantics.


----------



## damian13ster

Mortgage u/w said:


> The argument can be made that the subsidy is paid by the taxes generated by the sale of the EVs. I would say your argument is also semantics.


Wait, what? That makes absolutely no sense. 

Semantics was in regards to oil change costing 30 or 200$ per year.

The fact that taxpayers subsidize higher middle class, rich, and billionaires through EV subsidies is not semantics.


----------



## sags

We just bought a new vehicle, and the oil changes are free for the first 4 years.

Nobody knows what the savings will be, if any at all. Nobody knows what the price of gas or electricity will be in the future.


----------



## Mechanic

Mortgage u/w said:


> You have to consider your usage to properly assess. But on average, you will recover the extra cost rather quickly.
> 
> Charging costs anywhere between $0.01 to $0.02 per km. 20,000 kms per year costs an average of $300 in electricity.
> 
> Then there is maintenance. We can say there is no maintenance for an EV. No oils or other liquids to change/maintain. No spark plugs. No emissions. Brakes last easily 6-7 years thanks to regenerative braking.
> 
> Finally, there are many incentives to driving an EV. Your initial government incentive for starters. Tolls are sometimes exempt. Insurance and plate costs are also reduced depending your province.


Brakes last a long time if you drive properly. I seem to recall Tesla and Lucid saying you would save $4-6k over 4 years with EV over ICE ? Doesn't really help with cost difference but cleaner for pollution....maybe


----------



## Money172375

andrewf said:


> I would say an ICE would need brake job in that time (first five years), that an EV would not. And a couple hundred bucks a year in oil changes.


Why doesn’t an EV need as frequent brake changes?


----------



## Money172375

cainvest said:


> Based on BC Hydro estimates for a Hyundai Kona, EV = $342 / yr, ICE = $1720 for 15,000 kms.
> So $1378 saved on gas per year gives you 10.8 years for payback on fuel savings alone for a $15k (after federal rebate) price increase. Also add additional EV costs (if needed) for putting a home level 2 charger and/or using charging stations.


I think most people keep their cars less than 10 years.


----------



## Money172375

What’s the lifespan of the batteries and what do they cost to replace?


----------



## like_to_retire

Money172375 said:


> Why doesn’t an EV need as frequent brake changes?


They use regenerative breaking to charge the battery instead of wearing out the brake pads.

ltr


----------



## Mortgage u/w

Money172375 said:


> Why doesn’t an EV need as frequent brake changes?


regenerative braking. The motor stops the car for you so you don’t use the brakes. You drive using one pedal only.



Money172375 said:


> What’s the lifespan of the batteries and what do they cost to replace?


Tesla motor and battery is guaranteed 8 years.


----------



## Eder

Theres a lot of older cheap EV's for sale that need new batteries...about $10k. After 10 years a ICE Toyota is just getting broken in. (about 16k USD if your 9 year old Tesla craps out.


----------



## agent99

Mortgage u/w said:


> regenerative braking. The motor stops the car for you so you don’t use the brakes. You drive using one pedal only.
> 
> Tesla motor and battery is guaranteed 8 years.


An ICE engine also slows the car when you take your foot off the pedal. But admittedly, it doesn't put fuel back in the tank 

8 years isn't very long. If the battery fails just after that, replacement could be very expensive. In this example, a Tesla battery cost US$16,000 to replace (because failure wasn't covered by warranty.

Things could go wrong with an ICE, but usually they can be repaired for reasonable cost. Most go for a lot more than 8yrs before anything serious goes wrong. Presumably most batteries do too. But for how long? I would lease over buying, if we decided to get an EV.


----------



## andrewf

Eder said:


> Theres a lot of older cheap EV's for sale that need new batteries...about $10k. After 10 years a ICE Toyota is just getting broken in. (about 16k USD if your 9 year old Tesla craps out.


EVs or Teslas? Nissan made some bad design decisions with their older Leafs. GM's EVs have a nasty habit of bursting into flames and you are advised not to park it near anything combustible.


----------



## andrewf

agent99 said:


> Things could go wrong with an ICE, but usually they can be repaired for reasonable cost.


I recently had to replace the ABS pump on my ICE vehicle. It cost me nearly 8% of the vehicle purchase price when new to repair... I looked into getting a used part from the wrecker but they weren't giving those away either.


----------



## HappilyRetired

I have nothing against EV's but they don't yet meet my parameters. Eventually prices will come down and range/charging time will improve and then I'll probably get on board.

But for now I'm happy to let other people live with the drawbacks.


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> I recently had to replace the ABS pump on my ICE vehicle. It cost me nearly 8% of the vehicle purchase price when new to repair... I looked into getting a used part from the wrecker but they weren't giving those away either.


EVs have ABS pumps too ... just so you know.

But it'll likely be less than 8% for the EV because their purchase prices are so high.


----------



## Eder

No old Teslas around to see if their battery gets past the warranty date.


----------



## andrewf

Eder said:


> No old Teslas around to see if their battery gets past the warranty date.


There are some high mileage Teslas around. Some of the older Model Ss did have pack issues, but that seems to have been resolved for newer ones (and Model 3/Y). Battery is more # of cycles/distance than age.


----------



## andrewf

cainvest said:


> EVs have ABS pumps too ... just so you know.
> 
> But it'll likely be less than 8% for the EV because their purchase prices are so high.


Legacy automakers make most of their profit on service/parts. I'm pretty sure the part had a 1000%+ markup.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

agent99 said:


> An ICE engine also slows the car when you take your foot off the pedal. But admittedly, it doesn't put fuel back in the tank
> 
> 8 years isn't very long. If the battery fails just after that, replacement could be very expensive. In this example, a Tesla battery cost US$16,000 to replace (because failure wasn't covered by warranty.
> 
> Things could go wrong with an ICE, but usually they can be repaired for reasonable cost. Most go for a lot more than 8yrs before anything serious goes wrong. Presumably most batteries do too. But for how long? I would lease over buying, if we decided to get an EV.


An ICE engine will coast when you take your foot off the pedal. EV will actually stop the car and not coast at all.

The battery replacement example is valid. I should point out that this was for the Long Range version which is more expensive. The Standard Range battery is at least a third cheaper. Expensive none-the-less.

I would also point out that the repair was not triggered by a faulty battery. The damage was caused by a road hazard. Luckily it was covered by insurance.

I've had to rebuild engines, and transmissions in the past. Very costly. 
I would be scared to have to rebuild a modern transmission today.....I assume it would cost very close to a battery in an EV. 

Modern ICE cars have lots of technology too and very expensive parts should they fail. I wouldn't discredit an EV just because the battery pack 'could' be expensive to replace.


----------



## agent99

Mortgage u/w said:


> An ICE engine will coast when you take your foot off the pedal. EV will actually stop the car and not coast at all.


ICE engine will coast, but engine compression will slow it down. 
From what I have read, taking your foot off the pedal will slow you down in an EV, but it is no substitute for braking. You are turning off the power to the motors which then act as generators. Not all EVs come to a halt when foot is off pedal. 
This is what one Nissan Leaf EV owner posted:


> I tested this by lifting my foot completely off the gas (I think he meant pedal!) at 20 miles per hour, and didn’t stop for a good 10-15 feet. Slamming on the brakes stopped me almost immediately. So if someone runs out into the road, or the car in front decides it needs to stop very quickly, your right foot better be ready to move.


Our Subaru has "Eyesight". One feature, is that it will stop the car, regardless of what driver does, if it sees an obstruction front or back. Nothing to do with EV or ICE. I am sure many cars have this feature these days.

Regarding life of EV batteries vs ICEs, it's more a matter of experience than any known facts. We are familiar with our current ICE cars. Most of us will continue to still drive them for a long time. By the time replacement becomes necessary, perhaps we will know a lot more about maintenance costs on strictly EV vehicles. In the meantime, leasing seems to make more sense.

Re ICE reliability - If I total the odometer readings on our 1972-2019 cars, they add up to 1million km! Maintenance done for sure, but no rebuilds! They still run perfectly! Gas and diesel engines are _very_ reliable, just not so environmentally friendly.

By the way, I have nothing against EVs. It's the religious fervour of some owners that gets to me


----------



## Mortgage u/w

agent99 said:


> ICE engine will coast, but engine compression will slow it down.
> From what I have read, taking your foot off the pedal will slow you down in an EV, but it is no substitute for braking. You are turning off the power to the motors which then act as generators. Not all EVs come to a halt when foot is off pedal.


I own a Tesla and can confirm that taking your foot off the "gas" pedal will abruptly stop the car. There are different setting to this feature but most will leave this at the highest level to maximize regenerative braking. It does not compare to ICE compression. You essentially drive with the accelerator pedal only. Brake pedal is used in emergency situations only. This is why brake maintenance on an EV (Tesla, at least) is not before 6-7 years.


----------



## cainvest

Mortgage u/w said:


> Brake pedal is used in emergency situations only. This is why brake maintenance on an EV (Tesla, at least) is not before 6-7 years.


Depending on where you live ... here you'd be using your Tesla brakes 5-6 months each year.


----------



## like_to_retire

Mortgage u/w said:


> I own a Tesla and can confirm that taking your foot off the "gas" pedal will abruptly stop the car. There are different setting to this feature but most will leave this at the highest level to maximize regenerative braking. It does not compare to ICE compression. You essentially drive with the accelerator pedal only. Brake pedal is used in emergency situations only. This is why brake maintenance on an EV (Tesla, at least) is not before 6-7 years.


Fascinating. Do most EV's offer a setting to adjust this feature like the Tesla?

ltr


----------



## Mortgage u/w

like_to_retire said:


> Fascinating. Do most EV's offer a setting to adjust this feature like the Tesla?
> 
> ltr


I cannot confirm if other EVs offer the option. 
Tesla also has stopping mode options. You can set this to coast (Tesla calls this "creep") to replicate ICE behavior. Car will not stop in this mode until you hit the brakes. Most will leave this option to "Hold", allowing the car to hold the brakes when at a red light or stop sign. Similar to the "hold brake" feature on ICE vehicle. So ideal set-up is one pedal driving. As you ease up on the accelerator, car starts stopping (similar to easing into brakes) and eventually stops/holds where needed until you need to accelerate again. No difference if on a hill. Car will never roll.


----------



## like_to_retire

Mortgage u/w said:


> I cannot confirm if other EVs offer the option.
> Tesla also has stopping mode options. You can set this to coast (Tesla calls this "creep") to replicate ICE behavior. Car will not stop in this mode until you hit the brakes. Most will leave this option to "Hold", allowing the car to hold the brakes when at a red light or stop sign. Similar to the "hold brake" feature on ICE vehicle. So ideal set-up is one pedal driving. As you ease up on the accelerator, car starts stopping (similar to easing into brakes) and eventually stops/holds where needed until you need to accelerate again. No difference if on a hill. Car will never roll.


Sheesh, sounds complicated. Can I just slam on the darn brakes and stop the car like my ICE car?

ltr


----------



## agent99

cainvest said:


> Depending on where you live ... here you'd be using your Tesla brakes 5-6 months each year.


Just out of interest, why only 5-6 months?

I still can't envisage car suddenly stopping any time driver takes foot off the pedal. Wouldn't want a big-rig tailgating when that happens!


----------



## cainvest

agent99 said:


> Just out of interest, why only 5-6 months?
> 
> I still can't envisage car suddenly stopping any time driver takes your foot off the pedal. Wouldn't want a big-rig tailgating when that happens!


Generally recommended to turn off regen braking (or use on the lowest setting) in slippery (snow and/or ice) road conditions for safety reasons.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

like_to_retire said:


> Sheesh, sounds complicated. Can I just slam on the darn brakes and stop the car like my ICE car?
> 
> ltr


Not complicated at all. Just takes a few minutes getting accustomed to it. And yes, you can definitely slam on the brakes. 😂


----------



## cliffsecord

I didn't even test drive the Tesla Model 3 and I bought one. Though, I did ride in one a few times from friend.

It took me a few days to get used to the car. After that you start relaxing and really enjoying the ride. The linear acceleration is an amazing feeling. I used the autopilot so much that I almost forgot how to drive in a straight line. After a week of driving the Tesla, I forgot how to put the minivan into drive, almost got into an accident because the car didn't stop and hold when I let go of the gas pedal and I forgot a few times to turn off the engine when I got out of the car. There's a learning curve and it's a bit steeper than a normal car, but it's not that hard.

Trust me, once you drive one you'll want one - cost is a different matter. There was a article that said that people who test drive an EV end up wanting one....but then there was the article that said EV retention wasn't 100%.

All this talk about cost of the car seems irrelevant to me. If cost was the only argument then every one would just be buying Hyundai accents or Corollas. I fully recognize that I probably won't be saving money when compared to a Corolla or Civic, but I don't care. Now, compared to my four year old Honda Odyssey which cost me $45K all in, the Model 3 is already cheaper if you factor in gas, and oil changes.

In the end, I enjoy the ride, I enjoy my time away from the mechanic for oil changes and not wasting my time at the gas station.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

^ I echo cliffsecord's sentiments. Its got nothing to do about costs or saving the planet. If that were the case, everyone's argument should be to buy a used bicycle and ride the bike lanes.

I was introduced to Tesla because I was fascinated by its technology. After extensive research, I was sold before I got to sit in one. Everything current owners rave about is true. I'm a car guy and those that know me, know that I didn't choose the Tesla because of its hype. It fits my needs and meets my criteria - it obviously won't for everyone. 

I own both an EV and ICE and enjoy both equally but for different reasons. I can't really criticize either one. I find most who criticize EV don't fully understand them - definitely haven't owned or experienced one.


----------



## cainvest

Mortgage u/w said:


> I find most who criticize EV don't fully understand them - definitely haven't owned or experienced one.


I think when more models are available from more car makers people will start to accept them more, along with a price drop. I mean it's pretty hard to justify looking at two nearly identical cars side by side and saying "Ya, I'll pay an extra $15,000 for an EV powertrain". 

When I bought my previous daily driver I had a $2k option for a diesel engine which I took. Yup, took a few years to recoupe the cost but it was well worth it ... to me anyways.

I look forward to getting one once they meet my criteria and the price drops. Hopefully this will happen in conjunction with lower prices for home solar systems.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

cainvest said:


> I think when more models are available from more car makers people will start to accept them more, along with a price drop. I mean it's pretty hard to justify looking at two nearly identical cars side by side and saying "Ya, I'll pay an extra $15,000 for an EV powertrain".


Absolutely. And I believe this is the reason Tesla had rapid success - they don't have a gas equivalent to compare to.

I find car makers are not in a hurry to develop full EV with a whole new platform. Most will simply adapt an electric motor to their current platform and try to gain new customers. It makes sense - their current clientele is not really asking for an EV equivalent of their mainstream models. So when an equivalent EV model is created, its hard to justify the price difference when the client wasn't asking for one.

Volvo is onto something by developing Polestar. They developed a whole new division, taking the attention away from Volvo ICE vehicles. I think this is what all manufactures should do if they want to gain more market share in the EV space.

Instead, you have Tesla who is stealing market share from all gas car manufactures because they hardly have any competition.


----------



## cainvest

Mortgage u/w said:


> Volvo is onto something by developing Polestar.


Speaking of Polestar, Teslabjorn Live is streaming a 1000km drive tonight in a Polestar 2. Might be interesting to those thinking of doing long highway trips in an EV.


----------



## AltaRed

A lot may ultimately depend on reputation and reliability aka Toyota once several makes and models of EVs hit the market. InsideEVs obviously does not understand the difference between reliability and customer satisfaction which are two different things. Infatuation can overlook (be in denial of) underlying problems in the crap that CR thinks Teslas are. And if that isn't enough JD Power doesn't think much of them either.

If some brands can build a likeable, dependable and reliable EV, they just might have a winner. OTOH, perhaps these ratings agencies know nothing about anything.


----------



## sags

Cool EV....a little pricey though.









RBW Electric Classic Cars | Our Models | Roadster & GT


RBW Roadster & GT, the best in classic car craftsmanship & technologies. High-quality patented components & race-winning EV engineering




rbwevcars.com


----------



## cainvest

AltaRed said:


> A lot may ultimately depend on reputation and reliability aka Toyota once several makes and models of EVs hit the market. InsideEVs obviously does not understand the difference between reliability and customer satisfaction which are two different things. Infatuation can overlook (be in denial of) underlying problems in the crap that CR thinks Teslas are. And if that isn't enough JD Power doesn't think much of them either.
> 
> If some brands can build a likeable, dependable and reliable EV, they just might have a winner. OTOH, perhaps these ratings agencies know nothing about anything.


There are definitely problems early adopters face right now that'll likely (hopefully) get fixed in the next few years. Many of those issues are exposed by a few of the dedicated UT reviewers that do real world testing. Of course > 90% of internet reviews are just spewing positive marketing speak the auto maker tells them to say (otherwise they won't get test vehicles anymore) but those are fairly easy to spot.


----------



## AltaRed

I expect all automakers venturing into EVs for the first time to have quality/reliability/dependability problems but it seems Tesla has been slow to overcome them. One cannot look past such issues and just be mesmerized by whizz bang technological advances. At the end of the day, it's more than batteries and software that determines robustness and confidence in a vehicle.

Hence my reluctance to touch anything in the way of an EV for at least another 5 years, possibly 10 years. It took me until circa 2016? 2017? or so to buy into the actual usefulness of a smartphone and actually buy one.


----------



## m3s

AltaRed said:


> Hence my reluctance to touch anything in the way of an EV for at least another 5 years, possibly 10 years. It took me until circa 2016? 2017? or so to buy into the actual usefulness of a smartphone and actually buy one.


It's never really good idea to be an early adopter. Waiting until 2016 is just a reflection of age I would imagine - my father held out longer and I think he still uses it like a flip phone anyways

That doesn't mean smartphones were a bad investment opportunity from 2010-2016 or that the rest of the world's population agreed with your luddite views. People invest in the future

Tesla has to compete with established mega corps who lobby for status quo. Tesla is very forward looking on securing strategic advantages now while the megas were sleeping on EVs.

QC is easier to fix later than supply chains and tech talent. GM will have much harder time acquiring tech talent to catch up. Tesla will probably poach their talent instead to improve that side


----------



## AltaRed

As an example, for me a smartphone needs to be useful and productive to have one. All the early ones were rather simplistic and not ready for prime time, so all I had/needed/wanted was a cell phone. Once operating systems and apps became more useful, I now use my phone more than half the time on the net. There is a difference between being efficient and effective having technology serve you rather than being an early adopter and you serving technology. If it ain't ready for prime time, It is not worth having. I will leave that to all the propeller heads.

Added: It is the same with Windows 11. All the geeks can fall over themselves to be early adopters. I have no interest until at least 2023 and more likely 2025 when I replace my 2015 vintage machine. There is simply no value added being 'bleeding' edge.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

Don’t be quick to criticize something you have not experienced.


----------



## sags

GM is going to offer 30 different EV models within 3 years.

They not only have more than enough engineering talent, but their assembly factories build vehicles with far superior "fit and finish" than Tesla.

Tesla is still struggling to deliver an acceptable finished product out of their factory.

Tesla has a limited amount of time before people put them into the "lemon" category and that would not be good for their future sales.


----------



## agent99

sags said:


> They not only have more than enough engineering talent, but their assembly factories build vehicles with far superior "fit and finish" than Tesla.


Wow - The Teslas must be REALLY bad then


----------



## bgc_fan

agent99 said:


> Wow - The Teslas must be REALLY bad then


Well, they rank 27/28 of the Consumer Reports reliability this year: Tesla ranks almost dead-last on Consumer Reports reliability list

And before a Tesla fanboy starts talking about how Consumer Reports is biased against Tesla, remember how Tesla "broke" the ratings scale: Tesla Model S P85D Earns Top Road Test Score


----------



## AltaRed

JD Power depending on year places Tesla last or near last in their dependability scores. Together with CR's scores, no one would buy that vehicle if it was an ICE simply because no one wants to have those kinds of issues. They'd be considered lemons. Teslas have star power for a number of reasons but not for either reliability or dependability. I expect most brands of EVs to have similar 'early adoptee' issues so this is not a specific pick on Tesla.

Auto manufacturers have some of these issues with ICE vehicles when they do a total re-vamp (new generation) of vehicles but it only takes them 2-3 years to iron out the bugs before that "generation" settles in mostly with higher scores.


----------



## cainvest

I'll be watching from the sidelines for many more years I'd imagine until they get over their growing pains. Better highway range (maybe with a 2 speed gearbox) and/or motor improvements plus cheaper, lighter and overall better batteries. Quality issues will likely resolve when they get their shared common EV platforms sorted out.


----------



## MrMatt

AltaRed said:


> I expect all automakers venturing into EVs for the first time to have quality/reliability/dependability problems but it seems Tesla has been slow to overcome them. One cannot look past such issues and just be mesmerized by whizz bang technological advances. At the end of the day, it's more than batteries and software that determines robustness and confidence in a vehicle.
> 
> Hence my reluctance to touch anything in the way of an EV for at least another 5 years, possibly 10 years. It took me until circa 2016? 2017? or so to buy into the actual usefulness of a smartphone and actually buy one.


I think the established automakers already have systems to deal with most of the stuff.
Tesla is learning to build cars at the same time they're learning EV powertrain. Stuff like panel gaps etc sounds simple, but there are a thousand little issues that go into making cars. Legacy manufacturers already have those problems solved, they are only working on the powertrain aspects.

Also I think that with over 20 years of hybrids and now plug in hybrids a lot of the basic issues and reliability problems have been learned about. Some will disagree, but I think it's a pretty small step from a Plug In hybrid to a full BEV. Even a hybrid that can run on 100% electric can give you the experience to solve these problems.

I was talking about this yesterday, and I'm now thinking my next vehicle is likely to be a full electric.


----------



## m3s

AltaRed said:


> As an example, for me a smartphone needs to be useful and productive to have one. All the early ones were rather simplistic and not ready for prime time, so all I had/needed/wanted was a cell phone. Once operating systems and apps became more useful, I now use my phone more than half the time on the net. There is a difference between being efficient and effective having technology serve you rather than being an early adopter and you serving technology. If it ain't ready for prime time, It is not worth having. I will leave that to all the propeller heads.


Not everybody can handle new tech

By 2011 or 2012 I had iPhone paired with several bluetooth GoPros and vehicles sensors on the Nurburgring and it could render it all into a video with overlays and track data before you thought it was worth owning. Sure if you just need it to call your doctor or something maybe it's you not the tech

I never update windows until I am forced. It adds nothing for me rather takes away compatibility. There were a long list of things I couldn't possibly do as efficiently with a flip phone 2010-2016. Like wow you probably don't even use 90% of their capabilities today

For some people a Tesla probably adds a lot of capabilities. For others it would probably over complicate their drive to the proctologist or something


----------



## HappilyRetired

m3s said:


> Not everybody can handle new tech


I can handle new tech, I just don't want to be an early adopter or accept some of the limitations. That's for all products, not just cars. I was late buying a VCR, CD player, flat screens ,etc. until a certain quality, reliability, and price point was reached.


----------



## sags

The legacy auto makers may struggle with the EV part of the vehicle, but the rest they got down pat from decades of refinement, robotics and improved quality control.

Brand new vehicles with blistered paint, doors that won't open, windows that can't close without hitting the molding, large gaps and poor finishes.......are noticeable to buyers.

Under the hood and underside......not so much. When Toyota ran into a slew of quality problems......it cost the CEO his job.

Maybe it would be helpful if Tesla confined Elon Musk to working on populating Mars.


----------



## m3s

If fit and finish is all that matters than a german brand wins. If you want fit finish and value than asian brand.

Tesla is an american brand afterall but if they are worse than gm they got problems.


----------



## cainvest

m3s said:


> Not everybody can handle new tech
> 
> By 2011 or 2012 I had iPhone paired with several bluetooth GoPros and vehicles sensors on the Nurburgring and it could render it all into a video with overlays and track data before you thought it was worth owning.


I hope that's not an example of this "new tech" that not everybody can handle. Honestly, any half decent hardware/software nerd could throw things like that together in no time.

I was colllecting sensor data and GPS position back in 2004 when I raced my motorcycle, all done just for fun with stuff I had laying around the house. Sure it was interesting and cool data to visualize but not at all useful for general motorcycling, only if you're racing.


----------



## m3s

It was just a quick example of how a smartphone was useful before 2016. The sensor data existed before smartphones but you definitely couldn't fuse it all into a video and upload from the track over lunch or race virtually with people who started their laps at different intervals etc.

I mean someone who says smartphones were pointless before 2016 probably wasn't dating or doing anything mainstream at all. I know a few people without smartphones and they're the kind of people who never touched a beer or chocolate or a sexual relationship outside of an ordained marriage. They had a blackberry though


----------



## agent99

When the top Japanese and European EVs are available, the build quality of EVs will no doubt improve. Tesla get the credit for getting the movement going.


----------



## cainvest

m3s said:


> It was just a quick example of how a smartphone was useful before 2016. The sensor data existed before smartphones but you definitely couldn't fuse it all into a video and upload from the track over lunch or race virtually with people who started their laps at different intervals etc.
> 
> I mean someone who says smartphones were pointless before 2016 probably wasn't dating or doing anything mainstream at all. I know a few people without smartphones and they're the kind of people who never touched a beer or chocolate or a sexual relationship outside of an ordained marriage. They had a blackberry though


You're totally missing the point and it seems you have a very narrow view on how everyone should live their lives. If the tech is not useful to someone it is pointless for them to use it, smartphones included. Seriously, a smartphone is needed for dating and being mainstream ... lol, maybe to you it is. Now I know many folks (mainly young people) love their electronic leashes (very funny to watch the palov reaction to a notification chime) but it's not required to have a full and fun life.


----------



## sags

EVs are far easier to build than ICE vehicles. Manufacturers will likely have fewer kinks to work out than they did with ICE model changes.

I wouldn't be surprised if the assembly plants churn out more EV vehicles per hour than they do building ICE vehicles.

Fewer assemblies, fewer workstations, fewer management parts expediters, less unloading of parts on the receiving docks, less transport of parts to the assembly line by forklift drivers, smaller parts inventory to manage,........ it all adds up to lower labor costs per manufactured unit.

The auto manufacturers stand to pocket big profits from EV vehicles.


----------



## m3s

agent99 said:


> When the top Japanese and European EVs are available, the build quality of EVs will no doubt improve. Tesla get the credit for getting the movement going.


They also open sourced all their patents to do so. Elon believes this benefits everyone


----------



## cainvest

sags said:


> EVs are far easier to build than ICE vehicles.


Not as much as you'd think ... go watch some teardown videos on current VW, Tesla, and Ford EVs.


----------



## sags

EV production will eliminate a lot of jobs in assembly plants, but there could be opportunities to shift workers into manfuacturing the sub-components.

It all depends on future negotions between companies and unions in the near future.









Shift to electric vehicles will radically change auto factories


Electric vehicles have many fewer parts and assemblies, and that could lead to job losses



www.detroitnews.com


----------



## Eclectic21

m3s said:


> ... I know a few people without smartphones and they're the kind of people who never touched a beer or chocolate or a sexual relationship outside of an ordained marriage. They had a blackberry though.


An interesting sample ... whereas the sample I know have done the all of the "never" parts where some I know for sure have never had a black berry. Ages range from their seventies down to their thirties.

At least a few only have a cell phone for road side emergencies where even for phone calls, there is next to now use (never mind apps, video etc.).


Cheers


----------



## AltaRed

cainvest said:


> You're totally missing the point and it seems you have a very narrow view on how everyone should live their lives. If the tech is not useful to someone it is pointless for them to use it, smartphones included. Seriously, a smartphone is needed for dating and being mainstream ... lol, maybe to you it is. Now I know many folks (mainly young people) love their electronic leashes (very funny to watch the palov reaction to a notification chime) but it's not required to have a full and fun life.


Not only that but I never did say 'pointless' before 2016 or so. I said they were not necessarily useful. Sometime about mid-decade is when more websites became mobile friendly and more apps came along for online banking, online investing, payment systems such as Apple Pay, navigation and the like. Too many millennials and even Gen-Xers are tied to their chimes and notifications and get withdrawal symptoms if something is not happening on their social media apps. They often don't have an uninterrupted restaurant meal with friends and family without having to look at their phones.


----------



## m3s

I used a iPhone 4 to navigate europe from 2011. Colleagues were using those old built in nav systems that you had to pay the dealer to update with outdated maps lol

You can use the functions without being tied to the chimes. All my phones have been on silent forever

Similar with the EVs most of the critics have never used one and parrot things they heard about EVs 5 years ago.

Takes awhile for the general population to catch on to things


----------



## AltaRed

The degree of usefulness of smartphone apps at any particular period of time is as varied as there are individuals. We never had a particular need until about mid-decade and there is no point anyone particularly having a smartphone until the cost and the associated data package becomes value added to them.


----------



## cainvest

m3s said:


> Similar with the EVs most of the critics have never used one and parrot things they heard about EVs 5 years ago.
> 
> Takes awhile for the general population to catch on to things


No doubt there is a lot of noise when it comes to reviews but there are some good ones out there. Also, I don't need to use one to know it won't currently work for me.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

Again, I don’t understand all the critics here when they haven’t even experienced an EV. 🤦


----------



## sags

Residential charging is a big issue, and I haven't heard anything on how that will be addressed.

I just put up our Christmas lights on the front porch and had to run an extension cord from the outside light bulb socket.

Maybe if the government pays the cost we will get upgraded hydro and chargers. Otherwise......no EV for us or anyone else in the same situation.


----------



## sags

One question I haven't seen addressed yet is having multiple vehicles in the family.

A lot of people have more than one vehicle, and often 3 or more if they have kids who drive.

How would they all charge their vehicles simultaneously overnight ?

It seems to me that some basics need to be done before EV sales are going to take off as some predict.


----------



## HappilyRetired

Mortgage u/w said:


> Again, I don’t understand all the critics here when they haven’t even experienced an EV. 🤦


I know exactly why I don't want an EV, just like I know exactly why I don't want a cargo van without test driving either one of them.


----------



## like_to_retire

HappilyRetired said:


> I know exactly why I don't want an EV, just like I know exactly why I don't want a cargo van without test driving either one of them.


Yeah, I don't really see how driving an EV will put me under a spell that I won't be concerned about all the practical and logistical problems that roll around in my head.

ltr


----------



## cliffsecord

sags said:


> One question I haven't seen addressed yet is having multiple vehicles in the family.
> 
> A lot of people have more than one vehicle, and often 3 or more if they have kids who drive.
> 
> How would they all charge their vehicles simultaneously overnight ?
> 
> It seems to me that some basics need to be done before EV sales are going to take off as some predict.


Multiple solutions:

1. One charges at 240 V the other charges a 120 V
2. Get a load sharing charger which will split the power to the two vehicles - Tesla chargers have that capability or buy a smart splitter outlet
3. You don't always have to charge at the same time with BEVs
4. Overnight scheduling


----------



## AltaRed

Mortgage u/w said:


> Again, I don’t understand all the critics here when they haven’t even experienced an EV. 🤦


Why would you buy anything that is near the bottom of reliability and dependability ratings? The driving experience and technology make turn on geeks but it doesn't make up for parts falling off or failing. 

FWIW, some of us have had at least some peripheral experience. My spouse's nephew owns a Tesla S. It's not a big deal from my (limited) time in the vehicle nor would I want his need to plan his route for stops at superchargers. The only thing I really like is the flat torque curve for acceleration and the efficiency of regenerative braking is a positive for the environment and the pocketbook.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

sags said:


> Residential charging is a big issue, and I haven't heard anything on how that will be addressed.
> 
> I just put up our Christmas lights on the front porch and had to run an extension cord from the outside light bulb socket.
> 
> Maybe if the government pays the cost we will get upgraded hydro and chargers. Otherwise......no EV for us or anyone else in the same situation.


Mine is simply plugged into my exterior outlet and charges just fine at 120V. I have a back-up 240V outlet in my garage for when I need a rapid charge. Again, no issues there. FYI, Government does subsidize electrical installations. There seems to be a misconception that an EV needs 1000V to charge....a standard 120V outlet is just fine as a minimum.



sags said:


> One question I haven't seen addressed yet is having multiple vehicles in the family.
> 
> A lot of people have more than one vehicle, and often 3 or more if they have kids who drive.
> 
> How would they all charge their vehicles simultaneously overnight ?
> 
> It seems to me that some basics need to be done before EV sales are going to take off as some predict.


A simple research online will provide the answer to your concern. Multi-vehicle chargers are nothing new.


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> One question I haven't seen addressed yet is having multiple vehicles in the family.
> 
> A lot of people have more than one vehicle, and often 3 or more if they have kids who drive.
> 
> How would they all charge their vehicles simultaneously overnight ?
> 
> It seems to me that some basics need to be done before EV sales are going to take off as some predict.


You are hilarious. I can imagine you coming up with all the reasons indoor plumbing won't take off.


----------



## m3s

Charging vehicles is not rocket science

How do some people even find the keyboard


----------



## AltaRed

Mortgage u/w said:


> Mine is simply plugged into my exterior outlet and charges just fine at 120V. I have a back-up 240V outlet in my garage for when I need a rapid charge. Again, no issues there. FYI, Government does subsidize electrical installations. There seems to be a misconception that an EV needs 1000V to charge....a standard 120V outlet is just fine as a minimum.


 My spouse's nephew uses our 220V outlet in our garage whenever he shows up. His Tesla is almost always plugged in whenever it is parked in front of our garage. OTOH, I don't need to keep the hose of a gas pump connected to my gas filler overnight.


----------



## cainvest

Mortgage u/w said:


> FYI, Government does subsidize electrical installations.


Is that federal or only in some provinces? Also, how much do you get?


----------



## Mortgage u/w

AltaRed said:


> Why would you buy anything that is near the bottom of reliability and dependability ratings? The driving experience and technology make turn on geeks but it doesn't make up for parts falling off or failing.


Why would anyone buy any other car at the bottom of reliability and dependability ratings?


----------



## Mortgage u/w

AltaRed said:


> My spouse's nephew uses our 220V outlet in our garage whenever he shows up. His Tesla is almost always plugged in whenever it is parked in front of our garage. OTOH, I don't need to keep the hose of a gas pump connected to my gas filler overnight.


You don't have to keep the car plugged. But since outlets are so readily available, why not? 
Its like topping off your gas every day if you had a gas tank installed at home. Not necessary but practical.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

cainvest said:


> Is that federal or only in some provinces? Also, how much do you get?


It would be provincially subsidized. In QC, they will reimburse up to $600 for a single electrical charger installation. They also have a subsidy for condo complexes to install multiple chargers - I believe up to $5000 subsidy.


----------



## HappilyRetired

Mortgage u/w said:


> Why would anyone buy any other car at the bottom of reliability and dependability ratings?


There are several reasons. Some cars are sportier but unreliable, some are cheaper but that's all they can afford, and some people buy a car because it looks nice in spite of reliability issues.


----------



## AltaRed

Mortgage u/w said:


> Why would anyone buy any other car at the bottom of reliability and dependability ratings?


Do you know anyone who would knowingly do so if they knew better? Most people do at least a bit of quality research before making purchases, but obviously not everyone does.

WADR, I am not trying to be a jerk on this issue. Those who buy 'on the edge' have a good chance of buying 'poorly'. With ICEs, it takes upward of 3 years when a "new generation" vehicle is released to iron out most/all of the deficiencies. It doesn't matter much whether it is Ford or Toyota. They all experience some recalls in the first 2-3 years of a re-design. The best solution is to buy a 'model' in about the 5th year of its life cycle. Example: We bought a 2020 Mazda CX-5 GT Turbo. The first year of this 'design' was 2015. I fully expect my vehicle to have zero issues for at least 10 years.


----------



## cainvest

Mortgage u/w said:


> It would be provincially subsidized. In QC, they will reimburse up to $600 for a single electrical charger installation.


Seems BC does up to $350 as well but didn't find any other provincies giving money for that.


----------



## cainvest

AltaRed said:


> With ICEs, it takes upward of 3 years when a "new generation" vehicle is released to iron out most/all of the deficiencies. It doesn't matter much whether it is Ford or Toyota. They all experience some recalls in the first 2-3 years of a re-design. The best solution is to buy a 'model' in about the 5th year of its life cycle.


This has changed in recent years, depending on the model and maker. Many vehicles are run on common platforms now, some are even put out on the same assembly line. This will likely decrease, but not eliminate, beginning year issues for some models. As always, do your homework ...


----------



## Mortgage u/w

AltaRed said:


> Do you know anyone who would knowingly do so if they knew better? Most people do at least a bit of quality research before making purchases, but obviously not everyone does.


Whether someone knows or not, something will attract them to buy a specific model. There are tons of reports showing the least reliable cars - yet, people keep buying them. Every car manufacture has had a stereotypical issue - VW with electrical glitches, Ford with transmission issues, Honda with burning oil issues, paint issues, rust issues, etc, etc, etc.

I've done extensive research on Tesla (more than most) and still purchased one knowing all potential problems. Happy to say I've had zero issues. 

No matter how much you research, no car can be perfect. You just have to understand and be comfortable with any issues that may arise on what you buy.


----------



## AltaRed

cainvest said:


> This has changed in recent years, depending on the model and maker. Many vehicles are run on common platforms now, some are even put out on the same assembly line. This will likely decrease, but not eliminate, beginning year issues for some models. As always, do your homework ...


It is not just the common platform which should be a no-brainer that is the issue. It is many of the other hundreds or thousands of parts re-designed or poorly matched with a body re-design. It can be as simple as an anchor bolt or a lift gate switch which isn't appropriate for the re-design. One sees this quite often with almost every brand to varying degrees in almost every 'vehicle model' forum on the internet.

Anecdote: When my spouse retired in 2013, I bought her a new Nissan Pathfinder as a retirement gift. She wanted a 3 row SUV (heaven forbid...but I relented). I should have probably not done that since the 2013 was a re-design. As it turned out, it had 3 recalls that I am aware of in the first 3 years. One of which was a liftgate switch that may not function/align properly when the powered liftgate latched. Another one was the new CVT transmission that was built for this larger vehicle. We had to take it back for 3 software programming updates to get it to function as well as it was supposed too....Eventually, Nissan gave up on that and replaced the entire CVT with a 2015 re-design. Worked perfectly thereafter. That kind of recall is not untypical of re-designs in most vehicles.

I really do not want to own a vehicle that is subject to ANY recall, nor any call back, or any significant maintenance for the first 10 years that I own the vehicle. It is not in my DNA as an engineer. I will buy well after the kinks should be ironed out.


----------



## cainvest

AltaRed said:


> It is not just the common platform which should be a no-brainer that is the issue. It is many of the other hundreds or thousands of parts re-designed or poorly matched with a body re-design. It can be as simple as an anchor bolt or a lift gate switch which isn't appropriate for the re-design. One sees this quite often with almost every brand to varying degrees in almost every 'vehicle model' forum on the internet.


I'm less concerned about a body panel and a simple switch issue and look more at powertrain and serious electrical problems ... stuff that stops the vehicle from being used. Common platforms with known motors gives one a longer look at the serious issues if they're already been in use. Of course each model has new parts but if 50% are already deployed in a common platform that really reduces new problems. Also, depending on how picky one is .. trying to find a 5th year model without some sort of redesign and/or refresh really limits choice options unless buying used.


----------



## AltaRed

Refreshes don't concern me. Almost every manufacturer does refreshes within a vehicle's generation as they should, e.g. upgrade of an iffy part, new technologies, safety systems, etc. For example, Mazda put a bigger infotainment screen in their 2021 CX-5 versus my 2020, and for 2022, they sharpened the front and tail end looks a bit. Those are natural evolutions. But to the extent they completely change the CX-5 to a whole new inlilne 6 design to go more upscale to compete with BMW for 2023 (as is currently rumoured), I'd never touch the vehicle for at least 3 years into that design.

Added: I have no issue with others being the guinea pigs. I actually appreciate them undertaking inconvenience and aggravation to pave the way for us latecomers. Keep up the good work!


----------



## agent99

Mortgage u/w said:


> No matter how much you research, no car can be perfect. You just have to understand and *be comfortable with any issues that may arise on what you buy.*


This is true. 

It's a good reason to buy a vehicle that has full warranty coverage for a long period or at least one with possibility of being extended. Modern mechanical drive trains are reliable (and hopefully electrical ones too). But they have just too many electronic items that can fail. These can be very expensive to repair.

It's also a good reason to buy a vehicle that has a local dealer who can help you communicate with manufacturer on any issues that may arise.


----------



## MrMatt

cainvest said:


> Seems BC does up to $350 as well but didn't find any other provincies giving money for that.


Why are they subsidizing buying cars that are supply constrained, it's a waste of money.
More handouts for the rich.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

MrMatt said:


> Why are they subsidizing buying cars that are supply constrained, it's a waste of money.
> More handouts for the rich.


The subsidy is just a political stunt to satisfy all the environmentalists. Serves no purpose.

Not sure how it benefits "the rich"?


----------



## damian13ster

Because poor people don't buy new cars


----------



## m3s

agent99 said:


> It's also a good reason to buy a vehicle that has a local dealer who can help you communicate with manufacturer on any issues that may arise.


Have you ever been on a car forum

Dealers are more like the barrier between the owner and the manufacturer. Often they have repair bulletins of known issues and still deny warranty repair. Extended warranties are a huge cash cow. Imagine selling a service to someone and you get to decide if you want to provide it or not lol

They'd rather sell you $50 cabin air filters and convince you to replace perfectly good parts


----------



## Eclectic21

AltaRed said:


> Not only that but I never did say 'pointless' before 2016 or so. I said they were not necessarily useful ...


There is also the part of "useful to the owner".

As the thirty year old in my flip phone sample says - what he values is what decided which to get.
One could label him off a luddite but there's lots of tech he uses all the time, unlike those who don't have a computer etc.


Cheers


----------



## Mortgage u/w

damian13ster said:


> Because poor people don't buy new cars


Depends your definition of poor.

My definition of "poor" would be people who shouldn't afford a new car - yet they are the main group of people buying new cars. Consumer debt is at an all-time high. Its definitely not the "rich" that are making those headlines.


----------



## sags

Ontario wants to be the home where auto makers build EVs for sale around the world, but not so much in Ontario.

We want the jobs and revenues, but not provide for Ontario consumers to actually own them.

Example.....the building code said that new builds had to provide wiring to put in an EV charger. The Ford government eliminated that from the code.

Example.....the Ford government eliminated all subsidies to EV vehicles.

So.....buy yourself an EV made in Ontario.....we appreciate your support.


----------



## cainvest

AltaRed said:


> Refreshes don't concern me. Almost every manufacturer does refreshes within a vehicle's generation as they should, e.g. upgrade of an iffy part, new technologies, safety systems, etc. For example, Mazda put a bigger infotainment screen in their 2021 CX-5 versus my 2020, and for 2022, they sharpened the front and tail end looks a bit. Those are natural evolutions. But to the extent they completely change the CX-5 to a whole new inlilne 6 design to go more upscale to compete with BMW for 2023 (as is currently rumoured), I'd never touch the vehicle for at least 3 years into that design.


Refreshes can include new motors, sometimes it's an optional one. Point being, the more they share parts on common platforms the more it generally helps reliability.

In any case, EV builds are still in their growing/learning/improving phase with many new systems not related to knowledge gained on ICE platforms.


----------



## AltaRed

cainvest said:


> Refreshes can include new motors, sometimes it's an optional one. Point being, the more they share parts on common platforms the more it generally helps reliability.
> 
> In any case, EV builds are still in their growing/learning/improving phase with many new systems not related to knowledge gained on ICE platforms.


Fully agree.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> ... the Ford government eliminated all subsidies to EV vehicles.
> 
> So.....buy yourself an EV made in Ontario.....we appreciate your support.


Exactly, we appreciate when citizens support cars made in Ontario. It would be foolish for the Ontario government to buy vehicles for people. Thank goodness for clear thinkers like Ford.

ltr


----------



## HappilyRetired

sags said:


> Ontario wants to be the home where auto makers build EVs for sale around the world, but not so much in Ontario.
> 
> We want the jobs and revenues, but not provide for Ontario consumers to actually own them.
> 
> Example.....the building code said that new builds had to provide wiring to put in an EV charger. The Ford government eliminated that from the code.
> 
> Example.....the Ford government eliminated all subsidies to EV vehicles.
> 
> So.....buy yourself an EV made in Ontario.....we appreciate your support.


If you want an EV then you pay it and for your connection.

If you're not willing to do that you don't want one that bad.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

HappilyRetired said:


> If you want an EV then you pay it and for your connection.
> 
> If you're not willing to do that you don't want one that bad.


Don't be fooled. The subsidy applies to very few. There is a cap on the purchase price where most EVs surpass the minimum.


----------



## HappilyRetired

Mortgage u/w said:


> Don't be fooled. The subsidy applies to very few. There is a cap on the purchase price where most EVs surpass the minimum.


I was talking about the home connection. If you want an EV then it should be your responsibility not the taxpayer's.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

HappilyRetired said:


> I was talking about the home connection. If you want an EV then it should be your responsibility not the taxpayer's.


agree.


----------



## MrMatt

Mortgage u/w said:


> The subsidy is just a political stunt to satisfy all the environmentalists. Serves no purpose.
> 
> Not sure how it benefits "the rich"?


Because only relatively rich people buy electric cars.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

MrMatt said:


> Because only relatively rich people buy electric cars.


The federal grant of $5000 is not applicable to all cars. I believe the max MSRP is $55k. Any EV over that amount gets no subsidy on the Federal side. Provincial varies but hovers a similar amount. 

Unless all "rich" people are buying EVs under $55k, then your statement would be correct.


----------



## damian13ster

His statement is still correct. It might not help 'all' rich; however, people who buy new cars are generally relatively well off and they don't need welfare


----------



## sags

GM announces the Hummer Edition 1 will be rolling off production lines in December.

President Biden took a ride in one, during an event at GM. Biden is a well known "car guy" and he called it "one hell of a vehicle"

The US provides a $12,500 EV subsidy and GM has 125,000 people on the waiting list for a Hummer. The cost is $113,000 USD.

Personally, I think it is butt ugly and would buy a Cadillac before a Hummer.

A Cadillac Lyriq is a beautiful thing to behold.









Biden's test drive of electric Hummer helped increase reservations, GM says


Reservations for the vehicle increased sevenfold compared to an average day, as website traffic increased by about 230%, an executive said Tuesday.




www.cnbc.com


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> Personally, I think it is butt ugly and would buy a Cadillac before a Hummer.


Totally agree, but I think the Hummer feeds the "rebel cool person" thing, so they're popular.
There are lots of features people feel they have to have today that really aren't required to drive on our paved roads in the city. Top of the list is AWD. Such nonsense. Others will disagree.

ltr


----------



## MrMatt

Mortgage u/w said:


> The federal grant of $5000 is not applicable to all cars. I believe the max MSRP is $55k. Any EV over that amount gets no subsidy on the Federal side. Provincial varies but hovers a similar amount.
> 
> Unless all "rich" people are buying EVs under $55k, then your statement would be correct.


Firstly I'm not talking about that MSRP $55k max program you're talking about.

I was quoting the thread about chargers subsidies, not EV vehicles. If you can afford to buy an EV, you can afford the charger.

Most new car purchases are by middle or middle upper income.

Generally electric cars are slightly higher cost than the ICE equivalent, and I'd suggest that they are more likely to be purchased by more affluent individuals, ie "the rich".

If you accept that expensive cars, which EV's typically are, are purchased by wealthier people "the rich", then subsidizing chargers is really a subsidy for EV owners, who are "the rich".

It isn't like an EV charger subsidy is going to lower the cost of your bus/subway pass.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

MrMatt said:


> Firstly I'm not talking about that MSRP $55k max program you're talking about.
> 
> I was quoting the thread about chargers subsidies, not EV vehicles. If you can afford to buy an EV, you can afford the charger.
> 
> Most new car purchases are by middle or middle upper income.
> 
> Generally electric cars are slightly higher cost than the ICE equivalent, and I'd suggest that they are more likely to be purchased by more affluent individuals, ie "the rich".
> 
> If you accept that expensive cars, which EV's typically are, are purchased by wealthier people "the rich", then subsidizing chargers is really a subsidy for EV owners, who are "the rich".
> 
> It isn't like an EV charger subsidy is going to lower the cost of your bus/subway pass.


I agree - no reason to subsidize the chargers.

Most people, including myself, will not take the offer. Informed EV owners understand how to achieve a level 2 charger for minimal costs. Personally, it cost me $15. I find it ridiculous people will pay an electrician up to $2000 just to benefit from a grant of $600 (depending your province).


----------



## cliffsecord

MrMatt said:


> Firstly I'm not talking about that MSRP $55k max program you're talking about.
> 
> I was quoting the thread about chargers subsidies, not EV vehicles. If you can afford to buy an EV, you can afford the charger.
> 
> Most new car purchases are by middle or middle upper income.
> 
> Generally electric cars are slightly higher cost than the ICE equivalent, and I'd suggest that they are more likely to be purchased by more affluent individuals, ie "the rich".
> 
> If you accept that expensive cars, which EV's typically are, are purchased by wealthier people "the rich", then subsidizing chargers is really a subsidy for EV owners, who are "the rich".
> 
> It isn't like an EV charger subsidy is going to lower the cost of your bus/subway pass.


If the government didn't have the incentives then the adoption wouldn't be as fast and we would be paying carbon credits to other countries(I think)? The incentives also produce more jobs in that they get electricians more work by installing chargers. In Ontario, overnight charging really helps the nuclear reactors that over produce during the night time (you can't shut down a nuclear reactor since it would take two days to bring it back up).

Also the the subsidy still gives incentive to buy more EVs thus driving the price down so that others will be able to buy it earlier. In this way, I would say that the early adopters are subsidizing the later adopters.

I own a Tesla and I don't think I'm rich. I work hard and save my money!


----------



## damian13ster

No, we would not be paying carbon credits to other countries. 

The logic seems a bit backwards - later adopters who can't afford it now or choose not to because of financial prudency are subsidizing early adopters. 
Early adopters are the ones who get money out of tax pool that everyone pays into.

Although not rich, I am sure you can come up with significantly large group of people that could use the welfare you received for your Tesla much more.
The current climate policies are the biggest wealth transfers from the poor to the rich that we have seen in recent history


----------



## MrMatt

cliffsecord said:


> If the government didn't have the incentives then the adoption wouldn't be as fast


I think it would be, it isn't like there are EV's sitting on dealer lots.



> and we would be paying carbon credits to other countries(I think)?


We shouldn't be doing this at all.



> The incentives also produce more jobs in that they get electricians more work by installing chargers.


I don't know any tradesman who need more work.



> Also the the subsidy still gives incentive to buy more EVs thus driving the price down so that others will be able to buy it earlier. In this way, I would say that the early adopters are subsidizing the later adopters.


Again, you're talking like price is why people don't buy EVs.
The reason we're not buying more EVs is that there aren't any for sale.



> I own a Tesla and I don't think I'm rich. I work hard and save my money!


Is your household income above $80k?


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> GM announces the Hummer Edition 1 will be rolling off production lines in December.
> 
> President Biden took a ride in one, during an event at GM. Biden is a well known "car guy" and he called it "one hell of a vehicle"
> 
> The US provides a $12,500 EV subsidy and GM has 125,000 people on the waiting list for a Hummer. The cost is $113,000 USD.


It's a good subsidy imo. 2 birds 1 stone (climate and jobs)

Why does Biden promote GM so much while pretending Tesla doesn't exist?

Tesla is also America


----------



## zinfit

My choice is plug Hybrids. Once we get over the opposition to modular nuclear power I am betting on Toyota and hydrogen fuel cells. Nuclear power can create large volumes of hydrogen with almost zero carbon emissions.


----------



## Eder

The best way to get a subsidy to buy a 90k Tesla is to buy it in Alberta...provincial taxes are ridiculous when added to GST...you have a hand in both pockets.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

Eder said:


> The best way to get a subsidy to buy a 90k Tesla is to buy it in Alberta...provincial taxes are ridiculous when added to GST...you have a hand in both pockets.


No subsidy at that price point.


----------



## agent99

zinfit said:


> My choice is plug Hybrids. Once we get over the opposition to modular nuclear power I am betting on Toyota and hydrogen fuel cells. Nuclear power can create large volumes of hydrogen with almost zero carbon emissions.


If I needed to buy a new car, I think it would be a plug-in hybrid. Hopefully one that would have sufficient electric range for normal daily trips - shopping, golf, dining out etc. plus a margin. Maybe 100km. in total would do. Not available yet!

You are right about hydrogen. It is the answer for many applications.


----------



## Eder

Mortgage u/w said:


> No subsidy at that price point.


No PST is your subsidy.


----------



## zinfit

agent99 said:


> If I needed to buy a new car, I think it would be a plug-in hybrid. Hopefully one that would have sufficient electric range for normal daily trips - shopping, golf, dining out etc. plus a margin. Maybe 100km. in total would do. Not available yet!
> 
> You are right about hydrogen. It is the answer for many applications.


Toyota has some plug ins good for about 50 miles. I am about 30 miles outside of Calgary . I could almost make the round trip without using any gas.


----------



## cliffsecord

Rich or not rich, three out of the four people I know who own Teslas bought them because of the incentive. A few more bought other EVs or PHEVs because of the incentive. So anecdotally, the incentive is working. I bought mine because of the incentive. I don't see it as subsidizing the rich as much as encouraging EVs.

Tesla's strategy was always to make more expensive cars with higher margins so that they can learn and develop cars cheaper for everybody. Their Model 3 is the first affordable EV by them as a result of this strategy. Even with the Model 3 they are skewing towards the more expensive trims which don't get the incentive. This is my first time being an "early adopter" so it was a big step for me. I still buy four year old phones and only pay $10/month total for my entire family's cell phone plans.

The reason why there are no EVs on the lot are because a lot of the EVs made are compliance cars and they didn't make many. From what I've been reading, traditional dealerships have been asking for higher than MSRP for EVs and purposefully stalling the role out of EVs. Compound this with the chip shortage and it's easy to sell out. Heck even ICE cars are sold out!! If ICE companies were smart they would do pre-orders with a deposit like Tesla and get an interest free loan.

In other news, the Model 3 Standard Range Plus went up in price so it's no longer eligible for the incentive. Let's see how things shake out and see who's right!!


----------



## agent99

zinfit said:


> Toyota has some plug ins good for about 50 miles. I am about 30 miles outside of Calgary . I could almost make the round trip without using any gas.


According to their site, just two and their ranges are 40km and 68km (42 miles). And most of the EV ranges are overstated, according to reports. Nevertheless, at least with PHEV, you won't be left stranded  

Another problem, is actually getting one of these vehicles. Deliveries are apparently worse than Teslas, at least on the RAV. The Hyundai Ioniq is interesting. and seems to beat the Toyota Prius Prime on most counts. It has a 47km range and it seems these cars charge on 120V. 2021 Hyundai IONIQ Plug-in Hybrid vs Toyota Prius Prime | Hyundai Canada

So many new models coming out, best to wait, I would think. 

Besides, why pay $700/month when I pay $0/month (plus a little for gas or diesel) for existing cars


----------



## AltaRed

Ford and GM do factory pre-orders on their ICEs but at least in the USA, dealers are marking up beyond MSRP by tens of thousands of dollars for popular models. Manufacturers cannot do anything about it. 

Apparently there is an anecdote out there that a MustangE buyer complained to a Ford executive that local dealers were asking exorbitant markups to buy scarce models. The Ford executive recommended the buyer go and buy a Tesla Model 3 instead. As m3s has been saying, the f'ing dealers are the obstacles in what should be a simple online buying process. FWIW, I never want to see a dealer after I have picked up the vehicle.


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> It's a good subsidy imo. 2 birds 1 stone (climate and jobs)
> 
> Why does Biden promote GM so much while pretending Tesla doesn't exist?
> 
> Tesla is also America


Union votes


----------



## MrMatt

zinfit said:


> My choice is plug Hybrids. Once we get over the opposition to modular nuclear power I am betting on Toyota and hydrogen fuel cells. Nuclear power can create large volumes of hydrogen with almost zero carbon emissions.



Nuclear power can create large amounts of electricity which can be used to charge batteries or create hydrogen.

Hydrogen solves the recharge problem. But it's way less efficient than a battery. 
What advantage does it have?


----------



## MrMatt

cliffsecord said:


> Rich or not rich, three out of the four people I know who own Teslas bought them because of the incentive. A few more bought other EVs or PHEVs because of the incentive. So anecdotally, the incentive is working. I bought mine because of the incentive. I don't see it as subsidizing the rich as much as encouraging EVs.


Well it's subsidizing people buying expensive cars that would have been sold anyway.



> The reason why there are no EVs on the lot are because a lot of the EVs made are compliance cars and they didn't make many.


No, they aren't "on the lot" because there are shortages.
You bought a Tesla, you know that they still have shortages.








The Waiting List To Buy A Tesla Is Growing Rapidly


Once Tesla is producing cars in Texas and Germany, perhaps the situation will improve. However, for now, getting a Tesla is no easy task for many people.




insideevs.com







> From what I've been reading, traditional dealerships have been asking for higher than MSRP for EVs and purposefully stalling the role out of EVs.


No, they're profit maximizing.
It's supply and demand, high demand, low supply raise price.
There are 10 Mustangs showing as "in inventory" within 150km of Toronto. Typically they show there for a few days after they're sold.



> In other news, the Model 3 Standard Range Plus went up in price so it's no longer eligible for the incentive. Let's see how things shake out and see who's right!!


Go ahead, check, what is the delivery time for a no subsidy Model 3 Standard Range Plus?

I'd say if it's more than a a week or two they're still supply constrained.
February delivery... I'd say they're still shortages.









How many in inventory?
Not one within 200km of Toronto.










If there was a single Model 3 vehicle available I'd say we could consider something to push demand, but that's not the problem today.

However the people buying a $70k Model 3 are wealthy. People with median incomes (ie 80k) are buying used cars, or maybe a $20-25k compact, or even a $30k SUV, not a $70k car.

FWIW I was thinking my next vehicle would be an ICE in a few months, but over the last 2 years it's switched to maybe a plugin hybrid, to now thinking in 3 years I'll get an EV. (yes my perspective over a 5 year time change has shifted that dramatically).


----------



## zinfit

MrMatt said:


> Nuclear power can create large amounts of electricity which can be used to charge batteries or create hydrogen.
> 
> Hydrogen solves the recharge problem. But it's way less efficient than a battery.
> What advantage does it have?


it has a range advantage .With the above scenario hydrogen fuel cells would mean a real zero carbon emissions.


----------



## HappilyRetired

I'm all for hydrogen fuel cars and EVs. Once they meet my standards I'll be a customer.


----------



## damian13ster

MrMatt said:


> Nuclear power can create large amounts of electricity which can be used to charge batteries or create hydrogen.
> 
> Hydrogen solves the recharge problem. But it's way less efficient than a battery.
> What advantage does it have?


Lack of extremely destructive mining.
No reliance on banana republics for resources
Easier and more durable storage
Existing infrastructure can be easily fitted for hydrogen (that's why not building more pipelines is stupid)


----------



## HappilyRetired

I've been hearing about hydrogen fuel cells for almost 50 years. When will they be ready?


----------



## Mortgage u/w

HappilyRetired said:


> I've been hearing about hydrogen fuel cells for almost 50 years. When will they be ready?


When the government can cash-in on it. Until then, oil it is.


----------



## HappilyRetired

Mortgage u/w said:


> When the government can cash-in on it. Until then, oil it is.


I disagree. If they were viable and car manufacturers could make money from them they would be selling them. Auto makers don't care what a car runs on if they can sell it for a profit. They're in the car business not the oil business.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

HappilyRetired said:


> I disagree. If they were viable and car manufacturers could make money from them they would be selling them. Auto makers don't care what a car runs on if they can sell it for a profit. They're in the car business not the oil business.


Exactly. Car manufactures will make money regardless the fuel that is made available. They are not in the oil business but the government is. So the government ultimately decides what kind of car you should drive.

I am not disagreeing that there are alternative fuels out there that are superior to oil. I am just saying that there is a lot to lose by getting away from oil.


----------



## damian13ster

Hydrogen won't be green until nuclear is promoted. Only then fuel cells will be viable en masse
For some reason it is a boogeyman to environmentalists. They would rather have poisoned rivers and child labor in mines.
Guess too much money yet to be taken from the poor and given to the rich in subsidies to get away from it and promote nuclear


----------



## MrMatt

damian13ster said:


> Hydrogen won't be green until nuclear is promoted. Only then fuel cells will be viable en masse
> For some reason it is a boogeyman to environmentalists. They would rather have poisoned rivers and child labor in mines.
> Guess too much money yet to be taken from the poor and given to the rich in subsidies to get away from it and promote nuclear


The issue with Hydrogen Fuel cells is it is only 40-50% full cycle efficient, vs batteries which can get to 80-90%.
That's a big difference.


----------



## damian13ster

MrMatt said:


> The issue with Hydrogen Fuel cells is it is only 40-50% full cycle efficient, vs batteries which can get to 80-90%.
> That's a big difference.


It is only an issue if the hydrogen fuel cells become uneconomical in that scenario, since emissions are not an issue.
And this is dependent solely on price of electricity - come in nuclear power.
It might also limit range, but it is already very high so don't see that as particular concern - of course higher efficiency would lead to higher range, but we don't live in a perfect world


----------



## sags

Our nuclear plants in Ontario are ancient. Some go back to the 1960s.

There is zero public support to build new ones. A government would be swiftly defeated on that issue.


----------



## MrMatt

damian13ster said:


> It is only an issue if the hydrogen fuel cells become uneconomical in that scenario, since emissions are not an issue.
> And this is dependent solely on price of electricity - come in nuclear power.
> It might also limit range, but it is already very high so don't see that as particular concern - of course higher efficiency would lead to higher range, but we don't live in a perfect world


If it takes twice as much electricity to go the same range, then that's an issue with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Would you buy a car that costs twice as much to run?


----------



## andrewf

agent99 said:


> If I needed to buy a new car, I think it would be a plug-in hybrid. Hopefully one that would have sufficient electric range for normal daily trips - shopping, golf, dining out etc. plus a margin. Maybe 100km. in total would do. Not available yet!
> 
> You are right about hydrogen. It is the answer for many applications.


Hydrogen is DOA for most road applications.


----------



## damian13ster

MrMatt said:


> If it takes twice as much electricity to go the same range, then that's an issue with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Would you buy a car that costs twice as much to run?


Again, there is no such thing as ideal solution without any drawbacks

Hydrogen: can use electricity anywhere in the world, can use existing infrastructure, easy to transport, much easier supply chain, green, ethically sourced, less efficient

Batteries: higher efficiency/uses less power, need new infrastructure, more 'known' technology, need to use electricity at point of use, uses precious metals, destroying environment through mining, sourcing from third world countries - child labor, shorter life span.

I am sure I forgot some things on the list - feel free to add any


----------



## andrewf

damian13ster said:


> Again, there is no such thing as ideal solution without any drawbacks
> 
> Hydrogen: can use electricity anywhere in the world, can use existing infrastructure, easy to transport, much easier supply chain, green, ethically sourced, less efficient
> 
> Batteries: higher efficiency/uses less power, need new infrastructure, more 'known' technology, need to use electricity at point of use, uses precious metals, destroying environment through mining, sourcing from third world countries - child labor, shorter life span.
> 
> I am sure I forgot some things on the list - feel free to add any


Hydrogen fuel cells require precious metals as well, such as platinum. Hydrogen when requires far more new infrastructure then BEVs. Fueling stations costing millions, etc.


----------



## damian13ster

andrewf said:


> Hydrogen fuel cells require precious metals as well, such as platinum. Hydrogen when requires far more new infrastructure then BEVs. Fueling stations costing millions, etc.


Why wouldn't you use the existing stations with slightly repurposed distributors?
Supply chain for hydrogen wouldn't differ much from supply chain for gasoline


----------



## MrMatt

damian13ster said:


> Why wouldn't you use the existing stations with slightly repurposed distributors?
> Supply chain for hydrogen wouldn't differ much from supply chain for gasoline


Gas pumps are way different than high pressure pressure filling stations.


----------



## damian13ster

MrMatt said:


> Gas pumps are way different than high pressure pressure filling stations.


There are some differences but repurposing is not prohibitively expensive.
There was a study about it in California that found significant percentage of current gas stations can be repurposed. I won't quote exact number because don't have the study in front of me, nor do I have time to pull it up right now.
Also, existing natural gas infrastructure can be used for pure hydrogen, albeit at lower capacity than methane.
Hydrogen can also be blended into existing natural gas lines with the blend % increasing as the demand picks up.









Hydrogen – Analysis - IEA


Hydrogen - Analysis and key findings. A report by the International Energy Agency.




www.iea.org





"
Of the 5 000 km of hydrogen pipelines currently operational, more than 90% are located in Europe and the United States. Most are closed systems owned by large merchant hydrogen producers concentrated near industrial consumers (mainly refineries and chemical plants). The first steps to expand this hydrogen-specific infrastructure for delivery to end users (additional to industrial users) have already been taken. Most developments have involved repurposing natural gas pipelines, which can significantly reduce the cost of establishing national and regional hydrogen networks.
The first natural gas pipeline was converted and put into commercial service by Gasunie in the Netherlands in November 2018, with a length of 12 km and throughput capacity of 4 kt/yr. This prompted a consortium of gas grid operators in Europe to propose a European Hydrogen Backbone (EHB) initiative in 2020 (updated in 2021) that envisions 39 700 km of pipelines across 21 countries by 2040 – 69% being repurposed natural gas networks and 31% newly built hydrogen pipelines.
"


----------



## agent99

sags said:


> Our nuclear plants in Ontario are ancient. Some go back to the 1960s.
> 
> There is zero public support to build new ones. A government would be swiftly defeated on that issue.


Our _*original*_ nuclear plants are getting a bit old or have already been closed. First commercial one was at Pickering and started up in 1971. Prior to that there was a demonstration of a CANDU reactor at Douglas Point in late 60s. The four Darlington reactors first came on line in the 90's.

Pickering will be closed down in stages ending in 2025.

Darlington is currently being refurbished. First stage of refurbishment came on line last year and project is supposed to be complete by 2026. The refurbished plant is expected to operate until 2055.

The initial Bruce reactors came on line in late 70s and more during the mid/late 80s. Further refurbishments have taken place since Bruce Power was formed, some as recent as 2010's. (Transcanada (TRP) is a partner in Bruce Power) Current projected life of Bruce is to 2066. This includes plans for further refurbishments

So no, our _*current *_nuclear fleet is not "ancient" ! And much is and has been going on to maintain or increase capacity well into the future. Just as well, as the power for all those new EVs and Heat Pumps will have to come from somewhere (other than fossil fuels!

PS: I still drive a car that is completely original that was built about the same time as that first Pickering reactor! Still runs perfectly  A Classic, but not yet ancient


----------



## MrMatt

MrMatt said:


> Gas pumps are way different than high pressure pressure filling stations.





damian13ster said:


> There are some differences but repurposing is not prohibitively expensive.


They're completely different technologies, one is dumping a liquid through a hose in atmosphere, one is transferring pressurized gas.

Sure a lot can be common, but they're completely different technologies, and they'll be able to keep little more than the building.
Tanks, distirbution metering etc all need to be replaces.

Also in many places you have pump your own gas, but refilling pressurized propane is slower and requires a staff member.


----------



## like_to_retire

damian13ster said:


> I am sure I forgot some things on the list - feel free to add any


You forgot to mention that the majority of people see hydrogen as a bomb waiting to explode. This technology doesn't stand a chance. They should simply abandon it before they waste any more dollars on something the public will never embrace.

ltr


----------



## Eder

Took very little for stations to start offering propane to fill vehicles in the 80’s
Hydrogen would be no different and also safer
Very easy today to get filled up using propane power
I biked past a hydrogen filling station in Vegas this morning
Not sure if that’s a green bud or not


----------



## sags

Pickering is being closed due to age. There are no plans to replace the energy.









Pickering nuclear plant to be closed in '24 but local campaign building up steam to save it | inDurham


The end of the line is coming soon for the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station. For some, who fear the aging plant may be headed for a Fukashima-like meltdown, the end cannot come fast enough. For others, who worry about how Canadians are to replace the clean energy produced at the plant, the...




www.insauga.com


----------



## bgc_fan

The funny part about the whole subsidies for millionaires buying EVs is that it's not really valid. Assuming Ontario were to set limits like the federal government, I doubt millionaires would see much in the way of tax rebate. Particularly since they wouldn't be buying a max $55k car, but rather a $100k+ car like these.








2022 Lucid Air Grand Touring vs. 2022 Mercedes-Benz EQS: Gas Who?


We pit the two hottest new full-size, Tesla-baiting luxury super-sleds head-to-head in this big EV battle.




www.motortrend.com


----------



## andrewf

damian13ster said:


> Why wouldn't you use the existing stations with slightly repurposed distributors?
> Supply chain for hydrogen wouldn't differ much from supply chain for gasoline


Hydrogen filling stations cost millions. They are very expensive.


----------



## andrewf

Eder said:


> Took very little for stations to start offering propane to fill vehicles in the 80’s
> Hydrogen would be no different and also safer
> Very easy today to get filled up using propane power
> I biked past a hydrogen filling station in Vegas this morning
> Not sure if that’s a green bud or not


Propane and hydrogen are not the same thing. Hydrogen needs to be chilled to a much greater degree to achieve the necessary energy density.






COSTS AND FINANCING | H2 Station Maps







h2stationmaps.com







https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/21002-hydrogen-fueling-station-cost.pdf



The infrastructure doesn't exist, and will cost a lot to build. DOA. BEV is cheaper than gasoline to operate, hydrogen is more expensive. DOA. The only hope hydrogen has is banning combustion engines entirely. And by then, BEV will be so many orders of magnitude ahead in adoption it will be even more of a fait accompli than it already is. In my book, keep using hydrocarbons where it is absolutely necessary until other technologies make sense. I think hydrogen may only make sense for aircraft, and then only long-haul. Even then, a different synthetic fuel would likely work better.


----------



## agent99

sags said:


> Pickering is being closed due to age. There are no plans to replace the energy.


Pickering itself will be closed and shuttered for a long time while the plant is decommissioned and the site decontaminated. Can't see that changing, although perhaps something new could perhaps be built there.

But you are wrong about Pickering's output not being replaced. Right now only two of the 4 Darlington reactors are operating and at Bruce, 6 out of 8 . At Pickering 3 of the 4 remaining are operating. Total nuclear output at present is 8600MW. When refurbishment at Darlington and Bruce is complete in 2026 & 2029 and Pickering closed, the overall capacity will be ~9750MW - an over 13% increase.

There were plans for 2 new reactors at Darlington, but this project was deferred and refurbishment of old reactors, chosen as the preferred way of obtaining the increased capacity. They are apparently planning further incremental projects at both Bruce and Darlington but nothing as yet announced.

To sum up - Plans are already in place, licenses approved and projects under way, to increase Ontario's nuclear capacity at the existing sites.


----------



## off.by.10

Eder said:


> Took very little for stations to start offering propane to fill vehicles in the 80’s
> Hydrogen would be no different and also safer


Propane tank: < 200 psi.
Hydrogen tank: ~10000 psi.

They will never be the same. Not even close. The only thing hydrogen has going for it is a huge amount of lobbying money from established interests in the liquid fuel industry. Enough money that they managed to convince a good chunk of the population that it's green because of "water out the tailpipe".


----------



## AltaRed

I am guessing hydrogen will never take off, at least not for the retail consumer. The infrastructure is simply too costly and the average human being does not have the skill set to handle it properly. Darwin would eventually take care of many of them


----------



## Eder

Vancouver already has 3 stations to fuel up the Toyota, Honda or Hyundai in 3 or 4 minutes. Places like LA & SF are full of them.


----------



## MrMatt

Eder said:


> Vancouver already has 3 stations to fuel up the Toyota, Honda or Hyundai in 3 or 4 minutes. Places like LA & SF are full of them.


It's just not as cool as Tesla.
You've got to admit, Musk is a media/propaganda genius.


----------



## MrMatt

off.by.10 said:


> Enough money that they managed to convince a good chunk of the population that it's green because of "water out the tailpipe".


Uhh yeah that's really the EV/Hydrogen argument. the vehicle itself doesn't "pollute", it's just the cleanliness of the source fuel, and the production inputs into the vehicle.

You can even run a hydrogen ICE vehicle without all the headache of lithium mining pollution.


----------



## agent99

AltaRed said:


> I am guessing *hydrogen will never take off*, at least not for the retail consumer. The infrastructure is simply too costly and the average human being does not have the skill set to handle it properly. Darwin would eventually take care of many of them


Unlike propane, hydrogen is much lighter than air and will just naturally "take off" 

Hydrogen systems can be designed to operate safely. No more difficult really than for propane or natural gas or gasoline. In the chemical and electrochemical industries, we often worked with hydrogen. Just a matter of proper engineering to keep things safe.

Did you know that hydrogen was commonly used to light and heat houses during the hundred years between 1850 and 1950? - It is the primary energy providing component of coal gas. The rest being mainly carbon monoxide. This gas was likely more hazardous than pure hydrogen!

There were hydrogen powered cars during WW2 (more correctly, coal gas powered cars)


----------



## AltaRed

Hydrogen does have a long and storied history, but if hydrogen was so wonderfully safe for even Neaderthals, it would have gotten more traction by now. This is like the VHS vs Beta war..... It's over before it started.


----------



## agent99

AltaRed said:


> Hydrogen does have a long and storied history, but if hydrogen was so wonderfully safe for even Neaderthals, it would have gotten more traction by now. This is like the VHS vs Beta war..... It's over before it started.


I am pretty well certain you will be proven wrong again.
But, unfortunately I won't likely be around to enjoy that 😕 

Anyone still have a VHS? Some of the youngsters here probably have never heard of that war..


----------



## cainvest

AltaRed said:


> Hydrogen does have a long and storied history, but if hydrogen was so wonderfully safe for even Neaderthals, it would have gotten more traction by now.


You'd think so ... I mean they could go after converting large commercial aircraft first as the fuel supply locations are mainly limited to big airports. That could make a nice dent in gobal oil use and "green up" the sky.


----------



## AltaRed

cainvest said:


> You'd think so ... I mean they could go after converting large commercial aircraft first as the fuel supply locations are mainly limited to big airports. That could make a nice dent in gobal oil use and "green up" the sky.


I agree there are viable applications but I don't see them catching on at the consumer/retail level. CNG has been (and is) used at the bus transit and gas utility level but again with "sophisticated" users.


----------



## agent99

CNG for transportation wouldn't help _too _much with greenhouse gas emissions, but it is a clean burning fuel . CO2 emissions are apparently about 27% less than for gasoline. NOx and other emissions are also very low. CNG is also lower in cost than alternatives, other than electricity.

CNG is a familiar product and already safely used by consumers for home heating. If cost to convert cars and commercial vehicles to CNG was reasonable, it could be an interim step in reducing carbon emissions. Instead of incentives for electric cars, perhaps our governments should offer conversion to CNG!

Link: https://ebigaznaturel.com/en/is-compressed-natural-gas-polluting/


----------



## Eder

*"I must recommend against the Model Y," he concludes. "Spend your money elsewhere."* 









2021 Tesla Model Y review: Nearly great, critically flawed


The Tesla Model Y seems like the complete package, but its active safety suite is so fundamentally flawed that the whole dish is completely ruined.




www.cnet.com


----------



## sags

Wow.......that is a terrible review for Tesla.


----------



## HappilyRetired

Poor reviews for Tesla are nothing new.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

Eder said:


> *"I must recommend against the Model Y," he concludes. "Spend your money elsewhere."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2021 Tesla Model Y review: Nearly great, critically flawed
> 
> 
> The Tesla Model Y seems like the complete package, but its active safety suite is so fundamentally flawed that the whole dish is completely ruined.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnet.com


Disappointing review. Poor journalism. Clearly biased.


----------



## HappilyRetired

Mortgage u/w said:


> Disappointing review. Poor journalism. Clearly biased.


You're upset because they're critical and you're a fan. But most people would expect a lot more from a $70k (US funds) SUV than what a Tesla offers.


----------



## sags

Poor quality has gotten the boss's attention.......

Elon Musk tweeted to his factory workers to forget about quarterly delivery numbers and focus on "deliverable" vehicles.

Apparently it is costing Tesla lot of money to fix all the quality issues.


----------



## AltaRed

I agree the fanboys are in denial of the current reality but I think some sort of quality issue will be around in one form or another for everyone into mass production of the new reality. For Tesla, it is the inability to do parts design and assembly well. For others, it will be battery technology and software. I don't think we will have a high quality reliable product in the EV space for at least 5 years. Hence my ongoing position that I will let everyone else be the guinea pigs (early adoptees) and I will wait for potentially 2030 and beyond for my first EV...about the time I will need to be in the market again anyway.


----------



## bgc_fan

Mortgage u/w said:


> Disappointing review. Poor journalism. Clearly biased.


Maybe you like to ignore bad news, but the phantom braking issue is well known and a good reason not to use the autopilot, which means you don't have any cruise control functionality.








Tesla has a serious phantom braking problem in Autopilot


Tesla is seeing an increase in complaints over serious and dangerous phantom braking events plaguing Autopilot in the latest software...




electrek.co





Of course, you'll say you haven't seen it, but lots of people have and it's a recipe for disaster as it can lead people getting rear-ended due to sudden, unexplained stops.


----------



## cliffsecord

This article is interesting to me because I can actually compare my experience to theirs. Here's my take.

This critical flaw is the phantom braking. First, it's real and it freaked me out the first time it happened to me and it can be scary. However, if you know about it then it's manageable. With that said, I haven't had any Phantom braking at all of this year because I think the updates have been making it better and will depend on where you are. My trip from Toronto to Ottawa on Hwy 7 + 401 had no phantom braking on either leg. I also use it in town and it's really nice if you are going a long stretch of going straight, following traffic. It does get confused on some intersections that are big and if the intersection has turning lines. There is one in my area that I know about and I just override it when that happens. Now to be clear, if you use autosteer (lane keep) and adaptive cruise control only on the highway then it's amazing. Just like any cruise control you have to be still paying attention. I don't have personal experience, but people I've talked to who don't have a Tesla don't use their lane keep because it just bounces along the lane and their adaptive cruise control is very jolting (Volt and Outlander). The Tesla is butter smooth!

Their comment about disabling the function in confusing areas is funny because when it gets confused, it will warn you to take control.

As for the rain in the trunk, many people have reported a bad trunk gasket and they have no problems getting the mobile ranger to come to their home to fix it. My Honda Odyssey had a leaking sun roof and leaking roof rack rail.

White seats? Well, is it the problem of the seats or your jeans that cause the colour to transfer. Besides, if it transfers, just wipe it off. I do admit that the fake leather doesn't feel like leather and feels thin, but all owners in my facebook group say that it's been holding up well.

In terms of the cluster, it takes some getting used. I agree that some tactile interface would be an asset, but you get used to it. Their complaint that it's dangerous to look at the cluster to see the status of autopilot is stupid. It's not that bad! If you don't know the status of autopilot then reengage it by pushing down twice on the right stalk. In my Model 3 the autopilot status is near the top and it's at the same height as the speedometer in my other cars and only just slightly to the right now. They just needed to look at it often because they are still getting used to the setup.

FSD in Canada? Don't waste your money.

I think if the car were $45k or less they wouldn't have been complaining as much.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

HappilyRetired said:


> You're upset because they're critical and you're a fan. But most people would expect a lot more from a $70k (US funds) SUV than what a Tesla offers.


im not upset at all, actually. Car review articles do exactly that - criticize.

I’m disappointed because the review focused on phantom braking, water in frunk and white seats. Really? And this triggered a ‘do not buy’ recommendation? What about the rest of the car?

As cliffsecord pointed out, these are just flaws that can be remedied.

If we got to the point of rating cars by focusing on misaligned trunk gaskets and dealing with dogs on white seats, then yes, maybe I should be upset.

As for the phantom braking, it is real and could be a concern for some. I’ve never experienced it but not discrediting it either. The good news is that it can be fixed with an update. FSD is not something I’d get anyways. 

I’ve had worse issues with a previous Acura that activated emergency braking and almost caused the car behind to rear-end me. Should I accept that because it’s an Acura? Or tell everyone to avoid the car and expect better?


----------



## agent99

cliffsecord said:


> I don't have personal experience, but people I've talked to who don't have a Tesla don't use their lane keep because it just bounces along the lane and their adaptive cruise control is very jolting (Volt and Outlander). The Tesla is butter smooth!


Have heard about numerous Tesla quality problems, but no personal experience, so won't go there. I do understand that for the high price of these vehicles, buyer would expect quality.

Regarding the adaptive cruise and lane assist. Our Subaru Outback has that as apart of it's Eyesight system. 

The adaptive cruise works fantastically. Never any kind of problem. We use it whenever we are on a highway.
I turn off the lane assist. I don't like it because it feels like I am driving on a windy day. I don't always want to be where it wants me to be, for example when cornering.
Of course Outback is not an EV. You would think adaptive cruise would be easier to get right on an EV.


----------



## andrewf

bgc_fan said:


> Maybe you like to ignore bad news, but the phantom braking issue is well known and a good reason not to use the autopilot, which means you don't have any cruise control functionality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tesla has a serious phantom braking problem in Autopilot
> 
> 
> Tesla is seeing an increase in complaints over serious and dangerous phantom braking events plaguing Autopilot in the latest software...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> electrek.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, you'll say you haven't seen it, but lots of people have and it's a recipe for disaster as it can lead people getting rear-ended due to sudden, unexplained stops.


And yet, autopilot has a much lower accident rate.


----------



## cainvest

agent99 said:


> Of course Outback is not an EV. You would think adaptive cruise would be easier to get right on an EV.


I don't think there would be any real difference ... all it does is speed up, maintain or slow down.


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> And yet, autopilot has a much lower accident rate.


Probably just statistical probability, so few FSD on the road plus people are there to correct it's mistakes.


----------



## andrewf

cainvest said:


> Probably just statistical probability, so few FSD on the road plus people are there to correct it's mistakes.


Not sure that is how stats work. There are millions of Tesla's driving billions of miles.... That is enough for statistically significant data. Regardless of whether people correct mistakes or not (they do) Tesla's active safety outperforms the average others. It is not perfect, but it is not more dangerous on balance as FUDsters here are spinning it to be.


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> There are millions of Tesla's driving billions of miles.... That is enough for statistically significant data. Regardless of whether people correct mistakes or not (they do) Tesla's active safety outperforms the average others. It is not perfect, but it is not more dangerous on balance as FUDsters here are spinning it to be.


The article was a little unclear as to which system FSD vs autopilot had a more serious issue. If it was mainly FSD (which they did pull the software version) then the number was only ~2000 cars at best not millions like you say.


----------



## andrewf

Phantom braking is driven by Tesla Traffic Aware Cruise Control and autopilot not necessarily FSD (beta).


----------



## agent99

cainvest said:


> I don't think there would be any real difference ... all it does is speed up, maintain or slow down.


Controlling an electric motor's speed is surely quite different from controlling an internal combustion engine speed. On an EV, it would be an electronic/electrical system. On an ICE vehicle, it is often an electronic/electric/vacuum/mechanical system. End result same, but quite different mechanisms to get there.


----------



## bgc_fan

andrewf said:


> And yet, autopilot has a much lower accident rate.


Than what? You mean this? Elon Musk says a Tesla on Autopilot is 10 times less likely to crash than the average car, but experts say that stat is misleading

Essentially, it's cherry-picked data, comparing all drivers/incidents/situations (regular crash rate), to highway only driving (tesla stats). Given that only 17% of the fatal crashes are on highways, that much lower accident rate isn't so impressive. Or the fact that self-driving may disengage right before a crash, so that can skew the stats when they point to the accident and say, "look, self-driving wasn't engaged", but overlooking the fact that it may have been contributing to the incident right up until it disengages.


----------



## MrMatt

The reality is the median driver isn't that bad.

Almost all collisions are caused by drunk, impaired, or actively bad driving.

Very very few are actual accidents, or caused by mechanical failure.


Autopilot can easily be slightly worse than the average sober driver and still come out way ahead of the average driver if you throw a few drunks into the mix.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

Tesla Remotely Recalls Full Self-Driving Software for 'Phantom Braking' Problem


Consumer Reports shares details of Tesla's recall of the Full Self-Driving software for a "phantom braking" problem. The software update has already been sent to over 11,000 vehicles.



www.consumerreports.org


----------



## cainvest

agent99 said:


> Controlling an electric motor's speed is surely quite different from controlling an internal combustion engine speed. On an EV, it would be an electronic/electrical system. On an ICE vehicle, it is often an electronic/electric/vacuum/mechanical system. End result same, but quite different mechanisms to get there.


It's all just software now, haven't seen a vacuum/mechanical system for decades.


----------



## sags

I saw an ad the other day for a GMC vehicle that practically drives itself. It will in dealerships soon.

Our 2022 GM Trailblazer has all the driver assistance technology and it works flawlessly.

This technology is everywhere now. Tesla had the EV head start, but everyone is catching up quickly.

EV sales will boil down to manufacturer loyalty and model preference.

Tesla will have to "up" their game as every review I have seen on them isn't very good and word travels around the world today.


----------



## AltaRed

I think many/most brake boosters may still be vacuum based. A very cheap option.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> I saw an ad the other day for a GMC vehicle that practically drives itself. It will in dealerships soon.
> 
> Our 2022 GM Trailblazer has all the driver assistance technology and it works flawlessly.
> 
> This technology is everywhere now. Tesla had the EV head start, but everyone is catching up quickly.
> 
> EV sales will boil down to manufacturer loyalty and model preference.
> 
> Tesla will have to "up" their game as every review I have seen on them isn't very good and word travels around the world today.


Tesla is far ahead in data and tech. Driver assistance is not the same ball park. FSD is in beta testing. I haven't heard of GM beta testing any FSD

TSLA stock price tells me a lot about manufacturer loyalty and model preference. Why aren't the boomers investing as much in GM? That capital and investor confidence gives Tesla a huge edge imo. GM brand loyalty will only decline naturally assuming its fanbase is older on average. This should also mean GM fanbase should have far more capital to invest in GM and yet why don't they attract more investment?

You have to look further ahead from reviews of current models. Investors are pricing in future potential. They are also probably pricing in GM's track record


----------



## sags

GM's first generation FSD was called SuperCruise and was ranked by Consumer Reports as better than Tesla.

GM now has a 2nd generation FSD that is called UltraCruise. The commercials for it are already on television.









Is Tesla’s FSD-Enabled Autopilot About To Be Dethroned by GM’s Ultra Cruise?


Tesla is about to become embroiled in a heated competition on autonomous driving with General Motors, a legacy automaker.




wccftech.com


----------



## m3s

Tesla doesn't need to spend any money on TV commercials. What a waste of investor funds

If it's only on TV no wonder nobody I know has ever mentioned it. Have they tried YouTube, Netflix, hulu, amazon or Twitch?

Seems like I hear about Tesla and Elon non stop. The meme himself is the commercial


----------



## agent99

cainvest said:


> It's all just software now, haven't seen a vacuum/mechanical system for decades.


Open your eyes. Not worth commenting further.


----------



## cainvest

agent99 said:


> Open your eyes. Not worth commenting further.


My eyes are open ... I guess you think gas pedals still have a cable connected to them? Sure there still is mechanical in most systems BUT the ecm controls that. So to tack on cruise control it is now just a matter of reading sensors and having the ecm adjust the speed (i.e. software).


----------



## AltaRed

More and more throttle-by-wire, brake-by-wire and steer-by-wire. The only one I wouldn't really like is the latter one, i.e. I like road feel, essential on a sports car.








Through the wire: Electronic braking, steering and throttle are replacing mechanical connections


The gains of 'by-wire' are efficiency, packaging and tuning.




www.autoweek.com


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> Tesla is far ahead in data and tech. Driver assistance is not the same ball park. FSD is in beta testing. I haven't heard of GM beta testing any FSD


You haven't heard or Cruise?
They are operating robo taxis.








Cruise launches driverless robotaxi service in San Francisco


Employees of Cruise, the self-driving subsidiary of General Motors, will be the first to jump inside one of the company’s autonomous vehicles that operate in San Francisco without a human driver in the front seat. Certain members of the public will also be able to ride, but they won’t be charged...




techcrunch.com





Has Tesla caught up to GM yet? I'm not sure they have.








Elon Musk’s failed Tesla robotaxi promise is the height of self-driving hype


The electric carmaker has several of the pieces in place to take on Uber and Lyft someday. But it’s started whipping up excitement far too early.




www.fastcompany.com







> TSLA stock price tells me a lot about manufacturer loyalty and model preference.


TSLA stock price tells a story on market psychology.



> You have to look further ahead from reviews of current models. Investors are pricing in future potential. They are also probably pricing in GM's track record


Yes, but I've noticed now that there is real competition people are getting a lot pickier with Tesla. They aren't the only game in town, and people are noticing that the alternatives are quite compelling.


----------



## AltaRed

Interesting PHEV/BEV market share in Europe


----------



## bgc_fan

AltaRed said:


> Interesting PHEV/BEV market share in Europe


I think it's a good indication on what can happen if there are more cheaper cars. Of course the market is a little different as most people are buying smaller cars rather than big SUVs and trucks.

The top 3 look more like
Renault: Renault ZOE News and Reviews | InsideEVs
VW: Volkswagen ID.3 News and Reviews | InsideEVs
Dacia: Dacia Spring Reaches 40,000 Orders In 8 Months


----------



## cainvest

bgc_fan said:


> I think it's a good indication on what can happen if there are more cheaper cars. Of course the market is a little different as most people are buying smaller cars rather than big SUVs and trucks.


Yes, the market is different over there for sure along with much shorter distances to travel. I wish they'd bring smaller/cheaper EV cars here to NA. I bet most of the EU has some type incentive (or penalty for ICE) for going EV.


----------



## agent99

AltaRed said:


> Interesting PHEV/BEV market share in Europe


A lot of what is happening there makes sense, at least to me. 

If a buyer only wants one car, they would likely want it to be as versatile as possible. Around town a PHEV IS an EV. You can feel you are doing your thing for the environment. For long trips, it is an ICE car. Gas pumps with a few miles of whenever the gauge get near empty. Buy one car and PHEV gives you two. 

If you are a 2 car family, then perhaps what you want is one larger long range car or SUV, plus one small car for around town. An EV for that small car makes sense. But here in NA, most available EVs are large and expensive. The smart EV, although quite expensive, filled the bill, but was discontinued. Seems like the Dacia Spring fills the bill in Europe (along with a few other small EVs.). Maybe one want to upsize it slightly over here 

If we could buy a small EV for around town use, we might consider it. But probably only when one of our other cars needs replacing. Entertaining Dacia video  I had same experience as driver years ago when circling the Arc de Triomphe in my Mini. Went around 3 times before getting to where we wanted to exit.


----------



## bgc_fan

cainvest said:


> Yes, the market is different over there for sure along with much shorter distances to travel. I wish they'd bring smaller/cheaper EV cars here to NA. I bet most of the EU has some type incentive (or penalty for ICE) for going EV.


The shorter distance is definitely a factor as most of these cars are marketed for city driving. That plus the fact that in Europe cities are pretty close compared to NA. I think gas prices are enough of an incentive to move to electric.


----------



## AltaRed

The new Mazda MX-30 is such a city commuter car expensive in my opinion starting at $42+k.. When folks think of a commuter car, they are thinking Toyota Corolla or Matrix or Yaris, Honda Fit or Civic type pricing.


----------



## agent99

AltaRed said:


> The new Mazda MX-30 is such a city commuter car expensive in my opinion starting at $42+k.. When folks think of a commuter car, they are thinking Toyota Corolla or Matrix or Yaris, Honda Fit or Civic type pricing.





> At *$65,490 plus on-road costs*, the 2021 Mazda MX-30 Electric sits comfortably amid the Hyundai Kona Electric, Kia Niro EV, Nissan LEAF e+ and the entry Tesla Model 3.Jul 8, 2021


Quite a bit more than $42+k, whatever that means 

From family experience with them, I wouldn't go near a Mazda. 

But, you should buy one. If you can give your kids 10 figure sums annually, you can afford it. (can't believe you post that personal stuff)

This whole forum is going to the dogs. I am out of here


----------



## AltaRed

I don't know where you get your pricing from. From August Mazda new MX-30s are $44.5k and up. Okay, not $42k but close. I think that is way too expensive for a city commuter car and they have missed the mark. Some people think otherwise though. I've already seen a few of them on the streets here.

As for gifting, I do not care if it is known in general terms what I gift to family or charities. BTW, 5 (not 10) digits is anywhere between $10,000 and $99.999. Readers can speculate all they wish in an anonymous forum.


----------



## Eder

Mazda ICE cars are probably the best car for any young person on a budget.


----------



## AltaRed

Mazda quality and reliability ratings have moved up to top tier in recent years. It is more than highly competitive in its respective classes whether rated by JD Power or Consumer Reports, or others. The evidence speaks for itself. That isn't the point though. It is about automakers producing competitive EVs for various market segments. Mass market offerings are obviously working in Europe. Less so in North America so far but the brands and models are coming.


----------



## cliffsecord

OnRoute along the 401 will be adding EV chargers. Should relieve a lot of range anxiety.









Electric vehicle chargers to be installed at most ONroute rest stops by summer


Electric vehicle charging stations are set to be installed at most ONroute rest stops in Ontario by next summer.




toronto.ctvnews.ca





I hope they install enough so that people don't have to wait too long.

Now to get my CCS adapter.


----------



## bgc_fan

cliffsecord said:


> OnRoute along the 401 will be adding EV chargers. Should relieve a lot of range anxiety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Electric vehicle chargers to be installed at most ONroute rest stops by summer
> 
> 
> Electric vehicle charging stations are set to be installed at most ONroute rest stops in Ontario by next summer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toronto.ctvnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope they install enough so that people don't have to wait too long.
> 
> Now to get my CCS adapter.


Good news, but more of a "believe it when I see it". 

Apparently, they have promised five years ago: ONRoute lags in providing EV chargers at all highway-side rest stops. One of the possible excuses was lack of electricity supply. I wonder what changed.

Doesn't look like they are adding much, just 2 to start and more in certain places. Given the amount of traffic, maybe the demand will be recognized and they'll add more later. Don't think you'll need the CCS adapter as there is a mention elsewhere that there will be Tesla chargers. https://ca.movies.yahoo.com/ivy-onroute-canadian-tire-put-141000091.html


----------



## MrMatt

bgc_fan said:


> Good news, but more of a "believe it when I see it".
> 
> Apparently, they have promised five years ago: ONRoute lags in providing EV chargers at all highway-side rest stops. One of the possible excuses was lack of electricity supply. I wonder what changed.


I wonder if anyone was pushing some sort of "national energy corridor", to address this particular problem.

I really think we need to get serious about our infrastructure, particularly if we want to be dependent on electricity transmission.


----------



## damian13ster

That would be possible but Canada is no longer a country. Just a bunch of tribes that despise each other


----------



## andrewf

In other news, Tesla opened a 48 stall charging station (not even its largest) in California this week. They typically open one or two dozen stations per week.

2 chargers at a highway rest stop is laughable. Just wait for them to be out of order!


----------



## bgc_fan

Looks like Nissan has been working on solid state batteries and are planning commercial production by 2028. It should drop the cost of the batteries significantly, which would make the cars more price comparable to ICE cars.








Nissan Announces Proprietary Solid-State Batteries: $75/kWh Pack


By the way of announcing the Ambition 2030 long-term strategy, Nissan has revealed that it's making progress on the lithium-ion battery technology front.




insideevs.com


----------



## Eclectic21

MrMatt said:


> ... I wonder if anyone was pushing some sort of "national energy corridor", to address this particular problem.


Isn't that what Petro-Canada announced in 2019?








Canada's Electric Highway – EV Fast Charge car charging stations


We’re building a network of EV fast charge car charging stations across Canada. Learn more about how we are there to charge your journey.




www.petro-canada.ca






Cheers


----------



## MrMatt

Eclectic21 said:


> Isn't that what Petro-Canada announced in 2019?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canada's Electric Highway – EV Fast Charge car charging stations
> 
> 
> We’re building a network of EV fast charge car charging stations across Canada. Learn more about how we are there to charge your journey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.petro-canada.ca


Well was referring to the idea of all energy, like pipelines too. 
it's silly that we run a lot of our infrastructure through the US, being vulnerable to their politics is bad.


----------



## AltaRed

It was a decision long ago to reduce the cost of a transcanada oil pipeline system to eastern Canada by taking a shorter (and less costly to construct line in good digging rather than the rock of the Canadian shield), and to service Upper Midwest refineries at the same time. It was really a no-brainer at the time when political leaders had a more holistic view of cooperation. 

It would take billions to build a bypass line around the north of Lake Superior these days but may prove to be essential in the longer run... US politics being what it has become. The option down around via Chicago is just as fraught with political drama.


----------



## bgc_fan

Since we've gone all over the place on this topic, here's an announcement for a new SMR in Darlington. Estimated capacity is 300 MW.








Ontario’s Darlington nuclear plant to receive first new reactor in decades - Durham | Globalnews.ca


The small modular reactor planned for Darlington is 'really a first for the developed world,' said Ken Hartwick, chief executive of Ontario Power Generation.




globalnews.ca


----------



## cainvest

Came by this video for living with an EV in winter.





Informed Tesla onwer info at about the 4:00 mark.


----------



## Eder

You'd need to be a die hard using one in Alberta winters but its cheap to buy an old winter beater with studded tires & a high out put heater for those cold months. You could leave the Tesla parked on the driveway to signal you still care about our burning planet.


----------



## sags

Maybe best to keep it inside your heated garage, where it will be snuggy and warm.


----------



## cainvest

Eder said:


> You'd need to be a die hard using one in Alberta winters but its cheap to buy an old winter beater with studded tires & a high out put heater for those cold months. You could leave the Tesla parked on the driveway to signal you still care about our burning planet.


We have a number of Teslas driving all winter in Winnipeg., probably awd models.


----------



## AltaRed

cainvest said:


> We have a number of Teslas driving all winter in Winnipeg., probably awd models.


They may also be garaged most of the time.


----------



## HappilyRetired

sags said:


> Maybe best to keep it inside your heated garage, where it will be snuggy and warm.


Putting a Tesla in a heated garage defeats the purpose of going green.


----------



## cainvest

HappilyRetired said:


> Putting a Tesla in a heated garage defeats the purpose of going green.


Wouldn't that depend on how it's heated?


----------



## HappilyRetired

cainvest said:


> Wouldn't that depend on how it's heated?


All energy sources have an impact on the environment.


----------



## andrewf

HappilyRetired said:


> Putting a Tesla in a heated garage defeats the purpose of going green.


That's a bit melodramatic. An enclosed garage is still warmer than outside by virtue of putting a warm car in it periodically, and charging the car. You can think of it as a car cozy.


----------



## andrewf

HappilyRetired said:


> All energy sources have an impact on the environment.


Today, in meaningless statements. Arsenic and water are both toxic for humans.


----------



## cainvest

HappilyRetired said:


> All energy sources have an impact on the environment.


I think if you're taking it to that level you shouldn't be owning a car.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> That's a bit melodramatic. An enclosed garage is still warmer than outside by virtue of putting a warm car in it periodically, and charging the car. You can think of it as a car cozy.


Exactly. That was my point. A garage that is attached to a house seldom drops below freezing, and seldom gets close to freezing.... places like Winnipeg, Regina and Edmonton excepted. A detached garage is a different animal but even then a 1200W space heater will do wonders in detached garages if they are insulated properly.


----------



## spiritwalker2222

AltaRed said:


> More and more throttle-by-wire, brake-by-wire and steer-by-wire. The only one I wouldn't really like is the latter one, i.e. I like road feel, essential on a sports car.


Steer by wire actually has the potential to provide the best feedback. Steering input has generally gotten worse and worse over the years. My though is that manufacturers want their cars to feel light. Just like clutch feel. The car I have now is not too bad as it has variable power assist. It would be nice if you could select a setting to adjust the assist. I'd rather have no assist. Power steering is nice if you are blasting down a rutted out road, but I haven't done that since I sold my Subaru.


----------



## AltaRed

A number of vehicles with 'drive mode' selectors do just that... they vary the steering assist with drive mode, or have it selectable. Others vary the assist based on speed. My 2007 Infiniti has very good road feel at all speeds. It's variable just like the road noise adjustment on stereo systems. Power assist is a must for most drivers, especially for parking.


----------



## cainvest

AltaRed said:


> A detached garage is a different animal but even then a 1200W space heater will do wonders in detached garages if they are insulated properly.


Even on an insulated detached garage the temps normally run 2-5c higher with no heating at all. Ground heating does have a small effect plus, as mentioned, a recently driven vehicle stays warmer much longer in there than outside.


----------



## Eder

OTOH my Dodge diesel stayed outside on the street never plugged in in up to minus 40 with out ever skipping a beat ...after over 800,000 kms some one stole it lol. Remote starter is golden in the north.


----------

