Let's face it, Tesla is very much a status car at the present time.
Who knows about self-driving cars? When will it become viable? It does introduce the possibility of being very disruptive to the auto market, to our cities and to transportation in general. Millions of jobs could be lost. Usually when we see such things, our predictions turn out wrong. We did not know, the impact of the Internet when it first came on the scene. Likewise with smartphones. There have been other technologies that appeared promising but had little impact. This will be an even bigger game changer, but will require many times the investment. Only time will tell. The problem with self-driving vehicles is that the technology has to be mature to become a reality. That was not the case with the Internet nor smartphones. Since they were technology only, they were able to mature over time and gained popularity as they matured.
in 2025 Tesla sales will be probably around 2-3Million vehicles per year easy, China going live in late 2019, and European plant to come in 2020 timeframe, and probably 1 or 2 more in North America.
Can you name any other company with such a revenue growth chart as this?
Predictions with a lot of assumptions built in. If they can’t turn a profit in the next few quarters, you’ll see how useless that chart is.
I believe in EVs. And again, I was an early investor in Tesla. That doesn’t colour my perception. And you likewise should stop guzzling the Kool Aid as hard. I wouldn’t advise someone to buy a $60 000 car without being fully cognizant of the risk. And that is why I’m more pessimistic on this forum than elsewhere. Because this isn’t about investing. It’s about someone putting their hard-earned dollars down for a car. Want a Tesla? Just wait a few years and if your predictions come true, they’ll be a lot more stable and service and quality control will be a lot better. At minimum why would somebody not be weary of both the quality issues they have and the serious service constraints (like the lack of spare parts)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tesladom
People just like you have been wrong for last 10 years about the death of Tesla, I find it laughable that people are still calling for it.
Even Musk thought Tesla only had a 10% chance of success at launch. So you want to laugh at him too? People thought Nortel would never go bankrupt. Boeing thought they’d be the top airplane manufacturer for decades. Things change. And caution is warranted. Unlike you, not everyone can risk their vehicle becoming an unsupportable orphan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tesladom
GM et al have too much legacy in their business, just like Sears it will cripple them and they will eventually die off, only 1 or 2 will survive
People like you said IBM would go bankrupt. Big, faceless corporations have inertia. But they also have plenty of resources to change. GM could easily turn out like IBM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tesladom
Apple, Google, Amazon - they are all investing billions in self driving cars, it's the next Trillion$$ market, if you this Elon Musk is an idiot, go for it, but now you are saying that Apple, Google, Amazon are also idiots.
And we’re back to the strawman where criticism of Tesla equals criticism of all EVs. You do get that EVs can be viable and Tesla can be poorly managed at the same time right? Or is it simply so hard to imagine a world where EV =/= Tesla for you? I suggest you talk to the Chinese for some perspective on who really is pumping out EVs for everyone.
And unlike Tesla, tech giants like Google, Apple and Amazon don’t need autonomous EVs to survive. What’s Musk game plan if regulators decide not to allow full autonomy on Teslas for several decades?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tesladom
Cities who adapt to the self driving robo taxi car will win, and I think a lot of the public transit infrastructure will become redundant, especially outside city cores
And we’re back again to the usual Tesla sycophant bashing of public transit.
“Cancel public transit projects in your city before we even have a regulatory framework in place to certify autonomous driving, companies with a sound business model to provide autonomous taxis, etc.”
It’s a good thing actual city planners just humour moronic ideas like this. Why don’t you go to the next LRT meeting in Kanata and tell all the good folks they are morons who should buy $60 000 Teslas and wait for Musk to let them push a button and get to work in 5 years. Musk will guaranteedly deliver in that timeframe right?
Last edited by Truenorth00; Jun 11, 2019 at 5:21 AM.
Let's face it, Tesla is very much a status car at the present time.
Who knows about self-driving cars? When will it become viable? It does introduce the possibility of being very disruptive to the auto market, to our cities and to transportation in general. Millions of jobs could be lost. Usually when we see such things, our predictions turn out wrong. We did not know, the impact of the Internet when it first came on the scene. Likewise with smartphones. There have been other technologies that appeared promising but had little impact. This will be an even bigger game changer, but will require many times the investment. Only time will tell. The problem with self-driving vehicles is that the technology has to be mature to become a reality. That was not the case with the Internet nor smartphones. Since they were technology only, they were able to mature over time and gained popularity as they matured.
Anybody who sincerely believes governments will simply sign off on fully autonomous Teslas on public roads in the next few years has either never worked in engineering or doesn’t understand how stringent regulations are and the amount of reliability that needs to be demonstrated to get that signed off.
Not happening. We’re talking about cars with issues like this:
That might work for Tesla sales but it’s not going to work for regulators who have to know that hardware and software on a car will work every time. Not most of the time. Every time.
They’d need quality standards and process certification on par with the aerospace world. And when even Boeing screws up big time, I wouldn’t bet any money on Tesla convincing any regulator to let their cars run all over public roads without driver input anytime soon.
Find me a bureaucrat (let alone a politician) happy to sign off on “My Tesla didn’t accurately detect that stroller and so I accidentally ran over that baby while I was reading on my iPad and sipping my cappuccino.”
Autonomous cars will happen. But not anywhere near as fast as some think. The very nature of autonomous cars having to share the road with so many unpredictables from pedestrians to cyclists to pets means that the regulatory barrier is going to be high.
Huh??? You obviously don't know where I work ??? Companies like IBM had to re-invent themselves to survive and thrive again, but like most companies they are too focused on legacy profits and newcomers like AWS come in and scoop up a big part of their profitable market (Cloud and Analytics).
GM loses much more money per Bolt than Tesla does per Model 3. Take away pickups, and they likely lose money overall (I know Ford does). The purpose of the Bolt is to earn credits so they can sell more gas guzzlers
As for profits, people used to rag on Amazon for never turning a profit, even today their profit to revenue ratio is still low, yet they are one of the World's largest company by market cap nearing $1Trillion
Last edited by Tesladom; Jun 11, 2019 at 12:11 PM.
Autonomous cars will happen. But not anywhere near as fast as some think. The very nature of autonomous cars having to share the road with so many unpredictables from pedestrians to cyclists to pets means that the regulatory barrier is going to be high.
It will start with autonomous lanes, then some roads will be autonomous vehicles only, and then and then...
Some cities will embrace them, other will fight them. Cities that embrace the technology will see influx of people and investment, careful not to be left behind. And if North American cities don't embrace this, China will and watch out out
As for deaths, well check out the news almost every day unfortunately somebody dies in our area due to traffic accident of some kind (like yesterday 401/416 incident), we don't make much of it and go on about our daily lives, there is not accountability really in these crashes.
With autonomous technology, it has already been proven much safer (take Tesla Autopilot for example), and like what happens with Commercial airlines, every accident is investigated and recommendations are implemented - hence why flying is so safe - there is a cycle of continuous improvement, unlike human cause accident vehicle mortality.
Self driving cars will kill people, but if it happens at a much lower rate than human drivers, governments will need to look past this and continuously measure and implement improvements in the system until human mortality and injury is (almost) eliminated. Humans can't be trusted behind the wheel.
Using airline analogy, image if airplanes would not have Autopilot and other technologies, would you feel safe? Have autopilot technologies failed in the past? yes of course, but each incident improves the reliability of the systems
Based on posts here, increasingly looks like Tesla…..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tesladom
Companies like IBM had to re-invent themselves to survive and thrive again,
Right. So it’s quite the assumption that companies like GM flush with cash won’t reinvent themselves and just fold over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tesladom
but like most companies they are too focused on legacy profits and newcomers like AWS come in and scoop up a big part of their profitable market (Cloud and Analytics).
Very much an assumption on your part. People said the exact same thing about IBM too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tesladom
GM loses much more money per Bolt than Tesla does per Model 3.
Good thing the Bolt isn’t a large portion of GM sales and they have billions in the bank. How much does Tesla have in the bank and how long can they keep selling cars with negative quarterly cash flow?
Also, you seem fixated on GM. There’s a whole host of car companies making EVs and PHEVs. Not just GM. And many of those have substantially better service and support than Tesla. Why should someone who has always bought Toyotas for example buy a Tesla?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tesladom
Take away pickups, and they likely lose money overall (I know Ford does). The purpose of the Bolt is to earn credits so they can sell more gas guzzlers
“likely” ….. “I’ll just qualify my libelleous lack of evidence because I don’t care to provide evidence and facts.”
Also, the goal of every publicly listed company should be making profits. Or they won’t be in business very long.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tesladom
As for profits, people used to rag on Amazon for never turning a profit, even today their profit to revenue ratio is still low, yet they are one of the World's largest company by market cap nearing $1Trillion
Amazon actually had substantial positive cash flow if you take out their growth. It’s what justified that evaluation even while not banking profits. Comparing Tesla to Amazon is laughable. Musk has nowhere the managerial skills of Bezos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tesladom
It will start with autonomous lanes, then some roads will be autonomous vehicles only, and then and then...
Put down a timeline. Nobody here is denying that automation will happen. What we’re disputing is the timeline. Especially when you assert that investment in public transit will be negated by widespread automotive automation. You make an assertion this broad and sweeping? Surely you can backed it up with an evidence supported timeline for when this will become a reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tesladom
Using airline analogy, image if airplanes would not have Autopilot and other technologies, would you feel safe?
Ask the families of the Ethiopian and Lion Air 737 MAX crashes if they would have felt better if an autopilot overriding pilot input was not on the airplane.
In aviation, autopilot is never considered a substitute for a pilot. It’s considered a tool to reduce pilot workload. There’s still no substitute for a well-trained and experienced pilot. And if that’s aviation, you can bet the automotive world is so much further away.
This graph says it all, sure airplanes are better built and maintained, but most accidents even today relate to, in some part, pilot error. The role of automation is they factor to the drastic improvement in aviation safety over last 50 years
Max8 is not an automation issue, it is a design flaw.
Aviation is far more complex because it exists in 3 dimensions, you can program a car to stop any system failure on an automated system on the side of the road... easy, right? Not so easy with a plane in mid air
The aviation industry would never consider rolling back automated systems on planes, that would be ludicrous. Why then are we so afraid of automated systems for cars? Passengers freak out when I'm in autopilot in my car, they feel "scared", people need to experience it to believe it.
Aviation has a cycle of continuous improvement after every incident, new recommendations are made, systems are improved. We don't have such a system with cars, cars operated by people keep plowing into other cars and people on a daily basis, and we accept this. The alternative is to have a system with more automated cars, and when accidents happen, you can learn from it since all the information is recorded and available and implement new improvements through software OTA updates.
You can find all the reasons why we shouldn't do this, but China controls its regulatory processes, and guaranteed within 5 years you will see them move to automated cars in some of their cities and likely banning driver cars in certain parts, they will be the leaders, they will have smart cities, they will have the technology (which I think is the untold part of our reluctance to allow Huawei in 5G... but that's another topic) while we are sitting on our asses looking at how we can jack up our Ford F-150 even higher
Ummm, air transport is not really comparable to roadways and vehicles. Air transport is a totally controlled environment and most airplanes are professionally maintained and operated.
How can we ever achieve this on roadways? To come even close, we have to ban all private vehicles, and force pedestrians and cyclists off the streets. All of these pose safety risks to autonomous vehicles. When I say private vehicles, I include privately owned autonomous vehicles, because how do we know that they are properly maintained or meet current software and hardware standards for safe operations. We can depend on airlines and regulators to maintain high standards, but you and I?
I cannot see how autonomous vehicles will ever achieve the safety improvements that the air industry has achieved without severely limiting personal freedom. That is a major trade-off.
To potentially turn over most of our surface transportation network to private corporations is a scary concept as far as I am concerned.
I have no doubt that improved technology will reduce fatalities and injuries on our roads. I just read an article this morning on this very subject. Both fatality and injury rates are way down. Perhaps, autonomous vehicles will reach a standard that will safely operate on our roads, but that standard will have to be very high. When we see software errors that result in accidents, those are very much similar to technical problems that cause airplane crashes. Think about that. What happened to the 737s? What happens when millions of vehicles are ordered off the road because of a software or hardware inadequacy, and you will not be able to use your car again until a software improvement is developed, tested, released and installed in your car? Can you imagine the inconvenience of not being able to use your car for days, weeks, or months, or like other technology, sorry, your vehicle is too old to support the new release or other improvement. You will have to trade it in, otherwise, it needs to go to the junk yard.
I actually can see more promise in technology enhancements that help reduce human error. This is also coming on stream and is having results as the news story indicated. This is not an all or nothing situation.
Last edited by lrt's friend; Jun 12, 2019 at 7:01 PM.
Fatalities per 100 million miles driven have pretty well steadily decreased from 1921 to 2017 from 24.09 to 1.16 . Fatalities per 100,000 population peaked at 29.357 in 1937 while this has also dropped to 11.40 in 2017 despite much more driving. So, vehicle travel is following a similar improvement in safety as we are seeing for airline travel.
Fatalities per 100 million miles driven have pretty well steadily decreased from 1921 to 2017 from 24.09 to 1.16 . Fatalities per 100,000 population peaked at 29.357 in 1937 while this has also dropped to 11.40 in 2017 despite much more driving. So, vehicle travel is following a similar improvement in safety as we are seeing for airline travel.
I don't have time to find the quote, but Elon Musk had tweeted or something that their rate when driver is assisted by 'autopilot' is about 40% less than the current human operated rate.
Can we please move the discussion about self driving cars to the Ottawa Self-driving cars thread? This thread is about EV charging stations in Ottawa. We may also want a separate thread for the best Electric Vehicles for use in Ottawa.
This graph says it all, sure airplanes are better built and maintained, but most accidents even today relate to, in some part, pilot error. The role of automation is they factor to the drastic improvement in aviation safety over last 50 years
Max8 is not an automation issue, it is a design flaw.
Aviation is far more complex because it exists in 3 dimensions, you can program a car to stop any system failure on an automated system on the side of the road... easy, right? Not so easy with a plane in mid air
The aviation industry would never consider rolling back automated systems on planes, that would be ludicrous. Why then are we so afraid of automated systems for cars? Passengers freak out when I'm in autopilot in my car, they feel "scared", people need to experience it to believe it.
Aviation has a cycle of continuous improvement after every incident, new recommendations are made, systems are improved. We don't have such a system with cars, cars operated by people keep plowing into other cars and people on a daily basis, and we accept this. The alternative is to have a system with more automated cars, and when accidents happen, you can learn from it since all the information is recorded and available and implement new improvements through software OTA updates.
You can find all the reasons why we shouldn't do this, but China controls its regulatory processes, and guaranteed within 5 years you will see them move to automated cars in some of their cities and likely banning driver cars in certain parts, they will be the leaders, they will have smart cities, they will have the technology (which I think is the untold part of our reluctance to allow Huawei in 5G... but that's another topic) while we are sitting on our asses looking at how we can jack up our Ford F-150 even higher
I suggest you stick to talking about what you know. Aviation automation is nothing like what you imagine. It’s usually modalized (altitude hold, heading hold, etc) and requires a series of pilot inputs into the FMS. It requires a ton of active monitoring and active knowledge of both flying and airspace management. “Fly this heading. Now climb to this altitude. Now turn to intercept this localizer. Etc.” It’s the equivalent of driving your car by tuning your lane assist and cruise control.
Moreover, a ton of airplanes haven’t had more than simple altitude or heading holds until very recently. Let alone full FMS. Heck, plenty of controlled airspace still does not mandate an FMS or any automation. Most pilots are still hand flying landings and all pilots are flying departures. So the idea that aviation has gotten safer because of really advanced automation is just bunk.
Aviation is substantially easier to keep safe for reasons beyond automation.
1) Training standards and controlled access. The larger the aircraft, the more trained the pilot and more restricted the airspace they operate in. Nobody flying an airliner in Class A airspace has less than an ATPL and 2000 hrs. And bug smashers aren’t generally operating into major commercial airports full of large airliners.
2) 3D space is far easier to manoeuvre in. Airplanes can avoid collisions by climbing or descending. And collision avoidance manoeuvres provided by say TCAS alerts often involve an altitude change.
3) Separation. Airplanes maintain spacing that provides minutes of reaction time.
4) Fewer random variables. There’s no pedestrians in the sky.
On your question of whether I would feel safe in an aircraft without automation? Absolutely. With two decades of experience as a pilot and aerospace engineer I don't look at aviation automation as anywhere near as reliable to completely take over flying. And incidentally, it's still why we have two pilot airplanes.
The MAX incidents shows what happens when automation fails. That "design flaw" was flawed automation. Software that could not recognize flawed or conflicting sensor data. And Sullenberger's miracle on the Hudson also shows you exactly where automation has limits. We still don't have automation that could have done what he did. We will get there. But it takes time. And if that's where aviation is, automation is so much harder for driving.
1) Skill levels vary wildly on the road. And road access is not controlled by skill requirements. A truck driver and a driver with a G1 can both operate on the same road. And automated vehicles have to share the road with all these drivers.
2) 2D restriction. You can’t go up or down on the road to avoid a collision. Just left/right/stop/accelerate.
3) Poor separation. Drivers leave seconds of spacing. Not minutes. Automated vehicles have to react substantially quicker on the road than in the sky.
4) Randoms. Most roads have no protection against random interference. Dog, cat, squirrel, toddler or stumbling drunk can all end up in a vehicle’s path.
Getting back on topic, I read that starting in 2018, Nissan started offering an combination Level 1/Level 2 portable EVSE that will can be plugged into either a 120 or 240 volt outlet. I gather it will charge at up to 12A (1.4kW) at 120V and 16A (3.8kW) at 240V (not 100% sure on the 240V specs though).
I also saw an interesting video describing the pros and cons of using the portable EVSE that comes with your vehicle compared to installing a wall mounted EVSE. He is talking about Tesla's chargers, but it also applies to other EVs. One other consideration that he doesn't mention is that the Flo chargers are designed for Canadian winters and as such use a more supple cable which will remain flexible even on our coldest days. Not sure of the portable EVSAs that come with vehicles are as good.
Getting back on topic, I read that starting in 2018, Nissan started offering an combination Level 1/Level 2 portable EVSE that will can be plugged into either a 120 or 240 volt outlet. I gather it will charge at up to 12A (1.4kW) at 120V and 16A (3.8kW) at 240V (not 100% sure on the 240V specs though).
How different is this from the cable that comes with your car (on the 120V end)?
What I wish we worked on was more public charging that is fairly universally accessible. Like the light pole chargers.
How different is this from the cable that comes with your car (on the 120V end)?
It has a NEMA 14-50 plug (the same as Tesla used to provide) which is the same plug modern stoves use and apparently are also commonly available at campgrounds. It also comes with an adapter that plugs into the 14-50 to convert it to a regular NEMA 5-15 120V household plug. One of the concerns about this configuration is that the length/weight of the adapter will put a lot of strain on the outlet. As a result, it would be a good idea to connect it to a short, heavy gauge (optimally 12 AWG) extension cord. Assuming the adapter is passive, I might make my own short adapter cable.
According to this link, it says that the charger is rated for 30A (thus 7.2kW), not 16A as I said above. Regardless, the NEMA 14-50 plug would be required to on a 50A circuit to meet code.
For those who can't put in a 40A (or larger) breaker in their panel, level 2 EVSAs rated at 16A (20A breaker*) and 24A (30A breaker*) are available. You can also get level Level 1 chargers rated at 16A if you have a 20A outlet available.
* Appliances are limited to 80% of the rated maximum load of the breaker.
Quote:
What I wish we worked on was more public charging that is fairly universally accessible. Like the light pole chargers.
You don't need higher rates at every charger if you can charge all over the place.
Interesting, though I expect that street lights use a higher voltage, though. I know industrial lighting in Canada is typically 347V ref, so street lights might be the same. I read somewhere that Level 2 charging has an option for higher voltages, but I can't find it at the moment.
Of bigger concern is current draw. LEDs do use less power (thus draw less current) so the surplus could go to charging EVS, but the original bulbs would still not draw anywhere near the current an EV charger draw (this link indicates that the typical power consumption is 250-400W, though can be up to 1kW, though that is likely on highways), so they would probably couldn't put one on every lamp post (but maybe 1 every 5 lamps).
As the world moves towards a low-carbon future, there is a growing range of technological advancements facilitating the transition away from fossil fuels. Transportation and energy production are two sectors that desperately need to reduce emissions, and developments in electric vehicles and battery storage are rapidly changing both markets. Lithium, sometimes referred to as "white petroleum", is a key component in energy storage and in recent years demand has skyrocketed . This week delegates are gathering in Chile, the country with the world's biggest lithium reserves, at the 11th Lithium Supply & Markets Conference to discuss the latest advances in the industry.
About 6 months ago, Petro‑Canada announced they are building a Trans-Canada network of 53 EV fast charge stations (they have currently built one in Milton). They have now published a list of where those stations will be built. Unfortunately none will be in Ottawa, though there will be one in Gatineau. Initially they will be free to use, but that will obviously eventually change.
Here is a complete list of locations, sorted by postal code (approximately east to west):
NOVA SCOTIA
81 Main St. W., Stewiacke, B0N2J0
231 Herring Cove Rd., Halifax, B3P1L5 NEW BRUNSWICK
2600 Mountain Rd. R.R. 7, Moncton, E1G3T6
20 Royal Rd., Fredricton, E3A4T7
315 Rue Ouellette, Grand-Sault (Grand Falls), E3Z1A6 QUEBEC
704 Rue De L’Eglise, Saint-Jean-Port-Joli, G0R3G0
191 Chemin Fraserville, Rivière-du-Loup, G5R2C7
1230 Chemin Des Oliviers, St-Nicolas, G7A2M6
546 - 3E Rang, Sainte-Hélène-de-Bagot, J0H1M0
2525 Grande Allee, Boisbriand, J7H1E3
855 Ch. Saint-Fereol, Les Cedres, J7T1E9
395 Montee Paiement, Gatineau, J8P6M7 ONTARIO
325 Stewart Blvd., Brockville, K6V4W8
1586 Centennial Dr., Kingston, K7P0C7
638 County Rd. 41, R.R. 6, Napanee, K7R3L2
490 White St., Cobourg, K9A5N4
3733 Highway 7W, R.R. 2, Woodbridge, L4L1A6
175 Cundles Rd. E., Barrie, L4M4X7
235 Steeles Ave. E., Milton, L9T1Y2
3100 Ellesmere Rd., Scarborough, M1E4C2
3305 Dorchester Rd., Dorchester, N0I1G0
137 Mission Rd., Wawa, P0S1K0
311 Main St., Ignace, P0T1T0
1 Horseshoe Lake Rd. R.R. 2, Parry Sound, P2A2W8
1810 Regent St., Sudbury, P3E3Z8
713 Trunk Rd., Sault Ste. Marie, P6A3T2
1063 Dawson Rd., Thunder Bay, P7B1K7
498 Hwy. 17, Nipigon, P7C1T5 MANITOBA
Hwy. 1 & Prov. Rd. 207, Degald, R0E0K0
R.R. 4, Site 402, Comp. 5, Portage la Prairie, R1N3A4
100 Highland Ave., Brandon, R7C1A9 SASKATCHEWAN
1203 Highway 1, Whitewood, S0G5C0
2020 Coleman Cr., Regina, S4V3B9
450 North Service Rd., Moose Jaw, S6H4P9
1701 North Service Rd. E., Swift Current, S9H3X6 ALBERTA
100 Siksika Business Plaza, Siksika, T0J3W0
200, 64273 Hwy. 7 E., Aldersyde, T0L1T0
2900 Box Springs Blvd. N.W., Medicine Hat, T1C0C8
1731 Mountain Ave., Canmore, T1W2V2
42148 Hwy. 1, Calgary, T3Z2P2
100, 261200 Crossiron Blvd., Rocky View, T4A0J6 BRITISH COLUMBIA
1417 N. Trans Canada Hwy., Golden, V0A1H2
1872 Trans Canada Hwy., Revelstoke, V0E2S0
626 Old Hope Princeton Way, Hope, V0X1L4
915 Lakeshore Dr. S.W., Salmon Arm, V1E1E4
2054 Whatcom Rd., Abbotsford, V1K1C5
3591 Voght St., Merritt, V1K1C5
1885 Hwy. 1 W., Kamloops, V1S1J7
2693 Hwy. 97, Kelowna, V1X4J6
19971 72 Ave., Langley, V2Y3J2
1270 Lynn Valley Rd., North Vancouver, V7J2A3
5498 Patricia Bay Hwy., Victoria, V8Y1T2
1100 North Terminal Ave., Nanaimo, V9S5H8
The map they provided is a bit misleading, as they aren't that evenly spaced.
EDIT: For fun I made a Google My Map of the proposed (and existing) locations here.
Last edited by roger1818; Jun 23, 2019 at 6:06 PM.
Reason: Added Google My Map of locations
14. The Participant agrees to enroll and to allow Hydro Ottawa to integrate the Device to Hydro Ottawa’s Demand Response program (“DR”) during the Term. The Participant may elect to opt-out of DR events using Services FLO Inc.’s mobile application.
Curious about this "DR" program, I asked for more information, and received the following response:
Quote:
The Demand Response (DR) program is a program that we ask our customers to enroll in, so that we can obtain data from their charger. All you have to do is download the app and register your charger.
Once your charger is registered, the data that your charger produces will go to a portal that we have access to. The data that we collect and analyze are the following four aspects:
1. EV Consumption – Time of Use (what time of day it appears you do most of your charging)
2. Daily Consumption Trend (which day of the week it appears you do most of your driving)
3. Consumption Per Charging Session (how many kilowatts were used during each charging session)
4. KM Driven (how many km you drive in between each charge)
We ask our customers to at least enroll in the Demand Response program for the first year of having the charger. After the first year, you can opt out if you choose.
I believe that you will have to manually opt out, I don’t think it automatically does it.
Now the contract says it is valid for 5 years, but the e-mail said only one. Either way, if all they are doing is observing my usage and not restricting it in any way, I don't have any issues with that. It certainly makes sense that they would want to gather data on how EVs are being used (and, more importantly, charged) so that they can better prepare for their widespread use, and it explains why they created this program.
Cost if I had been using my previous car:
Total Mileage: 23,606kms
Efficiency: 8.5L/100km
Gas Usage: 2006L
Oil Changes: 5 x $70 = $350
Average Gas Price for Year: $1.107
Total Theoretical Cost: $2,571.20
Total Savings: $2221.20 - $795 = $1426.20
Total CO2 emissions savings: 2006L - 493L = 1509L x 2.31kg/L (taken from random website) = 3,485.79kg CO2 emissions.
I received my charger last year, and figured it was already connected (somehow...lol). I have no app and no tracking software, but of course, Hydro tells me my usage by appliance, and car is one of them, so...
Curious about this "DR" program, I asked for more information, and received the following response:
Now the contract says it is valid for 5 years, but the e-mail said only one. Either way, if all they are doing is observing my usage and not restricting it in any way, I don't have any issues with that. It certainly makes sense that they would want to gather data on how EVs are being used (and, more importantly, charged) so that they can better prepare for their widespread use, and it explains why they created this program.
Prev
Linear Mode
