Electric Vehicle Charging Stations in Ottawa-Gatineau

[J.OT13]

Would it be possible to add a poll? Who owns an EV:

- I own an EV;
- I own a Hybrid;
- I'm considering an EV;
- I'm considering a hybrid;
- I'll never buy an EV or a hybrid.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Would it be possible to add a poll? Who owns an EV:

- I own an EV;
- I own a Hybrid;
- I'm considering an EV;
- I'm considering a hybrid;
- I'll never buy an EV or a hybrid.

Good idea, though I would have it:

• I own a BEV (Battery Electric Vehicle),
• I own a PHEV (Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle),
• I own an HEV (traditional Hybrid Electric Vehicle),
• I am considering a BEV,
• I am considering a PHEV,
• I am considering an HEV,
• I would only buy an ICEV (Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle),
• I don't want a car.

Hopefully that isn't too many options.

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Good idea, though I would have it:

• I own a BEV (Battery Electric Vehicle),
• I own a PHEV (Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle),
• I own an HEV (traditional Hybrid Electric Vehicle),
• I am considering a BEV,
• I am considering a PHEV,
• I am considering an HEV,
• I would only buy an ICEV (Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle),
• I don't want a car.

Hopefully that isn't too many options.

I just tried to add this poll for you, but the feature seems to be limited to 7 options of 50 characters each.

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Good idea, though I would have it:

• I own a BEV (Battery Electric Vehicle),
• I own a PHEV (Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle),
• I own an HEV (traditional Hybrid Electric Vehicle),
• I am considering a BEV,
• I am considering a PHEV,
• I am considering an HEV,
• I would only buy an ICEV (Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle),
• I don't want a car.

Hopefully that isn't too many options.

There's a big gap between "I am considering" and "I would only buy an ICEV." The question should be re-focused on what you're looking for in your next vehicle. Right now, I won't need a new car for a few years, and none of the options listed there suit me.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

I just tried to add this poll for you, but the feature seems to be limited to 7 options of 50 characters each.

How about this instead:

1. I own a BEV (Battery Electric Vehicle. i.e Tesla, LEAF, Bolt, etc.),
2. I own a PHEV (Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle, i.e. Volt, etc),
3. I own an HEV (traditional Hybrid Electric Vehicle, i.e. Prius, etc),
4. I am considering a BEV,
5. I am considering a hybrid (PHEV or HEV),
6. I would only buy an ICEV (Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle, gas or diesel),
7. I don't want a car.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I believe Tesla don't mind. Some cars came with free Supercharging, which kind of discourages you from charging at home, where you have to pay for electricity. Despite this, vehicles with over 160,000 km on the clock still have a state of health of between 90 and 95%.

A lot of those figures though are based on:

1) Little supercharger use.

2) Teslas with great battery management systems.

Can't design your infrastructure with the assumption that every EV will be a Tesla.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I'm not sure how much an industrial grade, standard (AC level 2) charging station costs, but I know that consumer grade smart EVSAs can cost upwards of $1500 (plus installation), so I would think it would be at least double that. Installation will also likely be more expensive as it will likely be further from the panel and they will likely have to dig a trench to the charging station. As you said, the per station cost drops for installation if they install multiple stations. Regardless, I still believe the per station cost will be at least an order of magnitude cheaper to install a standard charging station than an DC Fast Charger.

Here I am not thinking of fast chargers per se. Put a 15 kW Level 2 charger and that might be good enough for quite a few people. I think of my family's car use and outside of trips we are doing about 60-100 km a week. Recovering most of that on a grocery store trip for a decent price would be good. Almost preferable to installing expensive fast chargers and jacking up the rate.

Originally Posted by roger1818

If you plan is to wait until someone else does it for you, then you are right and it will be a while.

However, Ontario has had "Right to Charge" legislation since 2018 that, requires condominium corporations to accept plans from condo owners to install an EV Charging station, unless the corporation can prove that the plan is not safe. True the condo owner needs to pay for it, but they then get to own the charging station and have exclusive access to it (and can sell it with the condo). The key is knowing your rights and being prepared. The law is on your side.

Check out this article by the Condominium Authority of Ontario (scroll down to section B).

This is all great in theory. But in reality, few condo owners are actually going to go through this. Especially if there is significant opposition from other residents (usually based on real or perceived concerns on cost sharing). Even fewer still will be motivated, when the fruits of all that legwork is a higher bill than most homeowners. This is exactly why I've said that government could accomplish more giving out subsidies for chargers in such situations than for the cars. Most boards aren't opposed to installing chargers. They just don't want to pay for something that benefits a single digit percentage of owners. And most owners already stretching for an EV, aren't usually likely to then want to pay full freight for a charging station too.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Sure they could, but I'm not holding my breath. Even if they did, how many hours a week do you spend grocery shopping? The best places for standard charging stations is places where people typically park for a several hours (home, work, park and rides, hotels, parking garages, etc). Even movie theaters and shopping centers (the type where you park once and walk to multiple shops) would be more useful than grocery stores.

There's now many jurisdictions where charging networks are specifically targeting grocery stores. There's grocery chains with active plans to add chargers. This articles sums up the reasons why it's mutually beneficial for grocery chains to install chargers:

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/11/21/walmart-costco-kroger-become-largest-ev-charging-centers-us/

Most people grocery shop at least once a week. And usually, they are spending a half hour or more from time they plug in till they unplug and drive away. Think of your typical trip from the time you park till the time you drive away. The question is one of what charge rates are appropriate to meet the needs of those shoppers. From my example above a decent higher end Level 2 charger would be sufficient. For somebody else, they might need a fast charger to fill up while at the store.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I'm not saying that they shouldn't have them, but more important than making ownership less "painless" is making it possible. Not being able to drive somewhere because there are no charging stations on that route is a higher priority than saving a couple minutes on a route that already has lots. In a perfect world we would put them along all provincial highways and at the the OnRoutes, but given the choice, I would pick the highways that don't have charging stations.

This is similar to the discussions we have about VIA and HFR. There's the issue of marginal return. Spending $30M to put multiple rows of fast chargers at every OnRoute will do an order of magnitude more to spur EV adoption than adding coverage for areas with few residents. Not that I am opposed to spending on chargers in remote areas. But it's bordering on absurd that we're worrying about edge cases when EV ownership is still far from easy for millions of drivers who actually live in cities.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Their prices are in line with most other vendors. You can't assume that you can buy electricity from a third party for a similar price to what you pay at home. At home you paid for all of the infrastructure in advance. When using a charging station, the electricity is only a small part of what you are paying for. You are also paying for the infrastructure, overhead and profit.

Fair point. And that's why it's hard to look at any EVs for the millions who stay in multi-unit dwellings, because even the publicly installed infrastructure doesn't make EV ownership economical. At these rates, why bother with a BEV? Just buy a fuel efficient econobox or a hybrid.

I look at the current situation and it's as though the entire framework isn't meant to promote EV adoption, so much as it is designed to make it cheaper for suburban homeowners to commute. As somebody who cares deeply about the decarbonization, that is quite a bit disheartening. I can only imagine how much more turned off, people who care less about issue get.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

How about this instead:

1. I own a BEV (Battery Electric Vehicle. i.e Tesla, LEAF, Bolt, etc.),
2. I own a PHEV (Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle, i.e. Volt, etc),
3. I own an HEV (traditional Hybrid Electric Vehicle, i.e. Prius, etc),
4. I am considering a BEV,
5. I am considering a hybrid (PHEV or HEV),
6. I would only buy an ICEV (Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle, gas or diesel),
7. I don't want a car.

Good polling. Just enable multiple options.

For example, we own a Jetta Hybrid. It's getting on in years. I bought it at launch in 2013. I would like a BEV. But I live in a condo. So I'm waiting to see what the Board does. They have asked the Management company to investigate charging options and report back this year. Based on that, my wife's employment (she drives to work), what options are out there for the size of vehicle we want and costs, we might pick a PHEV or a BEV.

Ideally though? I'd rather live in a place where no car is necessary at all. Even an EV is still worse for the environment than my own two feet and a Presto card.

So where would I fall into that survey?

[rocketphish]

OK, the poll is up. I had to shorten all options to 50 characters... I hope it still captures the essence of what was asked for. And I was able to add 8 options, so I split one into two.

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I look at the current situation and it's as though the entire framework isn't meant to promote EV adoption, so much as it is designed to make it cheaper for suburban homeowners to commute. As somebody who cares deeply about the decarbonization, that is quite a bit disheartening. I can only imagine how much more turned off, people who care less about issue get.

This is literally the point of EVs. Instead of structural change to change people's habits, they allow people to feel good while continuing to support sprawl.

[J.OT13]

Thanks for the poll rocketphish!

[CanadaGoose]

Not sure why people think the current charging situation is uneconomical in Ottawa now. It has dramatically improved.

Right now:

I have no charger at home, 400km battery. I charge maybe every 2-3 days on a public L2 charger.

When I choose to use an L2 charger, it’s typically for a mall visit or grocery store visit (thank you, IGA Plateau or Farmboy Westboro).

To put in perspective, I receive 40-50km of charge per hour at the charger for 1.00 to 2.00 (depends on province). That’s usually enough for me to continue on driving the next day.

I only use L3 chargers when leaving the city.

Winter wise:
- yeah, it —! 30% range loss.
- Having an indoor parking lot without a charger (extremely beneficial) since battery will be warm.

But then again, I still take the train and buses sometimes.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

A lot of those figures though are based on:

1) Little supercharger use.

2) Teslas with great battery management systems.

Can't design your infrastructure with the assumption that every EV will be a Tesla.

My intent was to counter your claim that, "I'm fairly sure there's no OEM out there that is okay with owners charging almost exclusively by fast charging." It is true that Tesla is ahead when it comes to battery management, but the others aren't all that far behind. Even Nissan have announced that their new Ariya will have active thermal management. The warnings in the owners manual are more of a CYA statement by companies that don't have much experience with BEVs and a carryover from early LEAFs that had faulty batteries and were passively air cooled.

Here I am not thinking of fast chargers per se. Put a 15 kW Level 2 charger and that might be good enough for quite a few people.

Although in theory, AC charging has a maxim rate of 19.2 kW (80A at 240V), in practice the on-board chargers in most cars max out well below that. Even new* Teslas (North American models) now max out at 11.5 kW (48A at 240V), and some have a 7.7 kW (32 amp) charger.

Why? Because higher capacity on-board capacity chargers are larger and heavier.

These are all based on split-phase, 240V charging. Most commercial charging stations are supplied by 3-phase, 208V power (though only use 2 of them). Since the charger is current limited, not power limited, the power is further derated (< 10kW for 48A and < 6.7kW for 32A).

* Older models could charge faster, as can European models that have 3-phase, on-board chargers.

I think of my family's car use and outside of trips we are doing about 60-100 km a week. Recovering most of that on a grocery store trip for a decent price would be good. Almost preferable to installing expensive fast chargers and jacking up the rate.

.
.
.

Most people grocery shop at least once a week. And usually, they are spending a half hour or more from time they plug in till they unplug and drive away. Think of your typical trip from the time you park till the time you drive away. The question is one of what charge rates are appropriate to meet the needs of those shoppers. From my example above a decent higher end Level 2 charger would be sufficient. For somebody else, they might need a fast charger to fill up while at the store.

Lets say that in winter you can get an average of 5 km/kWh and you take an average of your above weekly mileage of 80 km, that works out to 16 kWh per week. Even if you could charge at 11.5 kW continuously, you would need to charge for > 80 minutes per week. With 10kW it is > 95 minutes and with 6.7kW it is > 140 minutes. As a result, even 30 minutes twice a week wouldn't be enough so you will have to find somewhere else to charge as well.

Maybe you would be willing to inconvenience yourself that way, but most wouldn't. To encourage widespread EV adoption, we need to provide a way for people to charge where their car is parked for the longest.

This is all great in theory. But in reality, few condo owners are actually going to go through this. Especially if there is significant opposition from other residents (usually based on real or perceived concerns on cost sharing). Even fewer still will be motivated, when the fruits of all that legwork is a higher bill than most homeowners.

I never said it would be easy, but it would be the fastest way to accomplish this.

This is exactly why I've said that government could accomplish more giving out subsidies for chargers in such situations than for the cars. Most boards aren't opposed to installing chargers. They just don't want to pay for something that benefits a single digit percentage of owners. And most owners already stretching for an EV, aren't usually likely to then want to pay full freight for a charging station too.

In 2019, Canada introduced the Zero-Emission Vehicle Infrastructure Program (ZEVIP), which would subsidize installation of charging stations at (among other locations) Multi-Unit Residential Buildings (MURBs). Unfortunately the Request for Proposals (RFP) for that type of project is now closed.

There's now many jurisdictions where charging networks are specifically targeting grocery stores. There's grocery chains with active plans to add chargers. This articles sums up the reasons why it's mutually beneficial for grocery chains to install chargers:

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/11/21/walmart-costco-kroger-become-largest-ev-charging-centers-us/

Just because other jurisdictions are targeting grocery stores doesn't mean that they are the best place to have them. I am not opposed to them being there, I don't see them as being a high priority. The focus for standard (Level 2) charging stations should be places people park for multiple hours at a time.

This is similar to the discussions we have about VIA and HFR. There's the issue of marginal return. Spending $30M to put multiple rows of fast chargers at every OnRoute will do an order of magnitude more to spur EV adoption than adding coverage for areas with few residents. Not that I am opposed to spending on chargers in remote areas. But it's bordering on absurd that we're worrying about edge cases when EV ownership is still far from easy for millions of drivers who actually live in cities.

With that analogy, the vast majority DC Fast Chargers should be in Toronto, with maybe a few in Ottawa and none anywhere else. The thing is, most people don't rapid charge near where they live, but along the route they travel. It is traffic volume that is important, not population. Sure the 400 and 401 have a lot of traffic, but they are well served by DC fast chargers. What about all of the other 400 series highways that don't have OnRoute service centres. There are also other provincial highways that are very well used but lack rapid charging infrastructure.

As previously discussed, a perfect example of this is Hwy 7, arguably the best route to drive from Ottawa to Toronto in an EV as it shorter, requiring fewer charges en-route. There are currently only charging stations in Carleton Place, Havelock, Norwood and Peterborough. From central Ottawa, Carleton Place is only 50km, so really too close to be worth a stop, but Havelock is 230km and there is only 1 station, so if it is busy or broken, you have to continue to Norwood, which also only has 1 station.

Optimally you want charging stations at least every 100km, not because you need to stop at every one, but because people are starting from different places and wanting to stop at different intervals. Having said that, it is far more important to have multiple chargers at a single location than it is to have multiple locations close to each other (within a few kilometres). This is so that when someone shows up at a location, they have confidence that a charger will be available for them and not have to drive around trying to find one.

Fair point. And that's why it's hard to look at any EVs for the millions who stay in multi-unit dwellings, because even the publicly installed infrastructure doesn't make EV ownership economical. At these rates, why bother with a BEV? Just buy a fuel efficient econobox or a hybrid.

All the more reason to charge your car at home most of the time.

The cheapest option is to own your own charging station and pay for the electricity yourself. If that isn't feasible, the second best option is to have shared semi-private stations (sort of a co-op) where you pay both a maintenance fee and a usage fee. If that isn't possible, using a public station that offers a paid subscription that lets you get a discounted rate would be third best option.

I look at the current situation and it's as though the entire framework isn't meant to promote EV adoption, so much as it is designed to make it cheaper for suburban homeowners to commute. As somebody who cares deeply about the decarbonization, that is quite a bit disheartening. I can only imagine how much more turned off, people who care less about issue get.

It is designed to give EVs a shot in the arm to encourage their development. It is expected that in about 5 years, BEVs will reach cost parity with ICEVs and subsidies will no longer be necessary.

If we really want to get the best bang for the buck, we should be encouraging fleet vehicles to be electrified. Electrifying a vehicle that drives a couple hundred kilometres a day will do far more to reduce emissions than one that drives a couple hundred kilometres a week or less.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Good polling. Just enable multiple options.

Optimally we would have two questions (what type of vehicle do you own and what type(s) are you considering buying)? I don't think this forum allows for 2 questions like that.

For example, we own a Jetta Hybrid. It's getting on in years. I bought it at launch in 2013. I would like a BEV. But I live in a condo. So I'm waiting to see what the Board does. They have asked the Management company to investigate charging options and report back this year. Based on that, my wife's employment (she drives to work), what options are out there for the size of vehicle we want and costs, we might pick a PHEV or a BEV.

Given that (from your previous post) you only drive 80-100 km per week, PHEV with decent range on battery might be your best option (assuming you can charge it regularly if not now, in the near future). A short range BEV (≈100km) would severely restrict you since it is your only vehicle, but a medium (≈200km) or long (≥300km) range BEV would be overkill for your daily use.

Ideally though? I'd rather live in a place where no car is necessary at all. Even an EV is still worse for the environment than my own two feet and a Presto card.

Is that a likely possibility, or just dreaming?

So where would I fall into that survey?

At this point, I would say "3. I own an HEV" since it is the highest on the list.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by silvergate

This is literally the point of EVs. Instead of structural change to change people's habits, they allow people to feel good while continuing to support sprawl.

That's why I take Robert Llewellyn's (of Fully Charged and Red Dwarf) viewpoint. EVs aren't good for the environment, but they are better than ICEVs. You are still using a vehicle weighing thousands of pounds to transport hundreds of pounds of people or cargo.

People tend to be too focused on carbon emissions, but there are many other types of emissions that need to be considered, and not all of them come from the tailpipe. Others include NOx, SO2, brake dust and tire/road dust (the two mix together).

It is true that EVs greatly reduce carbon, NOx and SO2 emissions and their regenerative braking helps reduce brake dust (though it doesn't eliminate it). However, the higher weight of a BEV increases the amount of tire/road dust produced.

Is it worth it? I think so, but it isn't as green as you might think. It is much better than the status quo though.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I never said it would be easy, but it would be the fastest way to accomplish this.

Fastest way? Doubtful.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Just because other jurisdictions are targeting grocery stores doesn't mean that they are the best place to have them. I am not opposed to them being there, I don't see them as being a high priority. The focus for standard (Level 2) charging stations should be places people park for multiple hours at a time.

Grocery stores make a hell of a lot more sense that Canadian Tire and Home Depot parking lots. Ideally, you want to place chargers where people are most likely to use the. Home and work are ideal. Beyond that though, gyms and grocery stores are among the best where people spend a fair bit of time on a regular basis. Any place else is not really concurrent activity. You aren't going to want to walk around the mall for an hour every week.

Originally Posted by roger1818

With that analogy, the vast majority DC Fast Chargers should be in Toronto, with maybe a few in Ottawa and none anywhere else.

This is a strawman.

Originally Posted by roger1818

The thing is, most people don't rapid charge near where they live, but along the route they travel. It is traffic volume that is important, not population. Sure the 400 and 401 have a lot of traffic, but they are well served by DC fast chargers.

Very debatable. If you had zero clue about EVs, you wouldn't think they were served at all, because there are no chargers at the OnRoutes. And this is probably what most of the public thinks.

Originally Posted by roger1818

What about all of the other 400 series highways that don't have OnRoute service centres.

They should have OnRoutes? I mean, I'm not out here saying that the lack of infrastructure, charging or otherwise is excusable. I think it's pretty appalling how there isn't a single OnRoute on the way to Montreal.

Originally Posted by roger1818

There are also other provincial highways that are very well used but lack rapid charging infrastructure. As previously discussed, a perfect example of this is Hwy 7, arguably the best route to drive from Ottawa to Toronto in an EV as it shorter, requiring fewer charges en-route. There are currently only charging stations in Carleton Place, Havelock, Norwood and Peterborough. From central Ottawa, Carleton Place is only 50km, so really too close to be worth a stop, but Havelock is 230km and there is only 1 station, so if it is busy or broken, you have to continue to Norwood, which also only has 1 station.

Sure. Fill the gap. And I would bet that eventually will happen. Ivy would probably fill gaps like these. But realistically, there is an order of magnitude more traffic going down the 401 than Hwy 7. The populations of these communities en route is also ridiculously small. And there's very few trips where the 401 isn't out of the way. Honestly, this sounds more like a personal preference because you want to take Hwy 7. If we're going to talk about provincial highways which need more infrastructure, I'd say there's way better candidates than Hwy 7 (6, 8, 10 and 11 for examples).

Originally Posted by roger1818

Optimally you want charging stations at least every 100km, not because you need to stop at every one, but because people are starting from different places and wanting to stop at different intervals. Having said that, it is far more important to have multiple chargers at a single location than it is to have multiple locations close to each other (within a few kilometres). This is so that when someone shows up at a location, they have confidence that a charger will be available for them and not have to drive around trying to find one.

Achieving larger numbers of fast chargers is difficult though when you don't have concentration of users. Putting in the high voltage lines to the OnRoutes to feed a bank of 20 charging spots is much more defensible than spending a similar amount to finally service 4 spots near Havelock.

Originally Posted by roger1818

All the more reason to charge your car at home most of the time.

Or not buy an EV.....

Originally Posted by roger1818

It is designed to give EVs a shot in the arm to encourage their development. It is expected that in about 5 years, BEVs will reach cost parity with ICEVs and subsidies will no longer be necessary.

Creating the conditions to make EV ownership possible for 10 drivers will always achieve more than subsidizing one driver. That's my point. Direct subsidies do nothing more than help a lot of suburbanites with above average incomes get a discount on a new car.

Originally Posted by roger1818

If we really want to get the best bang for the buck, we should be encouraging fleet vehicles to be electrified. Electrifying a vehicle that drives a couple hundred kilometres a day will do far more to reduce emissions than one that drives a couple hundred kilometres a week or less.

Absolutely. Another example that shows how absurd our current policy is. The same money spent electrifying Canada Post or buying charging stations for every taxi company in Canada would do more to cut emissions in 5 years than the $5000 rebates did.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Given that (from your previous post) you only drive 80-100 km per week, PHEV with decent range on battery might be your best option (assuming you can charge it regularly if not now, in the near future). A short range BEV (≈100km) would severely restrict you since it is your only vehicle, but a medium (≈200km) or long (≥300km) range BEV would be overkill for your daily use.

Practically speaking we need to be able to travel to Toronto and Ottawa. So the range needs to be there to be able to do that in a reasonable amount of time. So I wouldn't buy anything that wasn't long range. Especially if it's our only vehicle. A PHEV almost seems pointless to us. At that point, we'd both rather just buy another gas car and wait till there are better EV options on the market.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Is that a likely possibility, or just dreaming?

In Ottawa? Ha ha ha. This town will never be pedestrian friendly. I have told my wife though, I hope to retire in a place that is pedestrian and transit friendly. Even if it's outside Canada. I have zero desire to spend my older years wasting good chunks of it inside a car.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

That's why I take Robert Llewellyn's (of Fully Charged and Red Dwarf) viewpoint. EVs aren't good for the environment, but they are better than ICEVs. You are still using a vehicle weighing thousands of pounds to transport hundreds of pounds of people or cargo.

People tend to be too focused on carbon emissions, but there are many other types of emissions that need to be considered, and not all of them come from the tailpipe. Others include NOx, SO2, brake dust and tire/road dust (the two mix together).

It is true that EVs greatly reduce carbon, NOx and SO2 emissions and their regenerative braking helps reduce brake dust (though it doesn't eliminate it). However, the higher weight of a BEV increases the amount of tire/road dust produced.

Is it worth it? I think so, but it isn't as green as you might think. It is much better than the status quo though.

This is my big beef with a lot of Tesla fanatics (other EV fans seem to fall for this less). Elon Musk has successfully painted EVs as the world's solution to climate change. That is distinctly not true. People will have to drive less and and we'll have to build cities better. Great article here on this very debate in California:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...vehicles-alone-won-t-stop-climate-change

Sometimes I really wonder if EVs do more harm than good because they make it so easy to avoid any discussion on sprawl and how destructive the suburban auto-dependent lifestyle is.

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by roger1818

That's why I take Robert Llewellyn's (of Fully Charged and Red Dwarf) viewpoint. EVs aren't good for the environment, but they are better than ICEVs. You are still using a vehicle weighing thousands of pounds to transport hundreds of pounds of people or cargo.

People tend to be too focused on carbon emissions, but there are many other types of emissions that need to be considered, and not all of them come from the tailpipe. Others include NOx, SO2, brake dust and tire/road dust (the two mix together).

It is true that EVs greatly reduce carbon, NOx and SO2 emissions and their regenerative braking helps reduce brake dust (though it doesn't eliminate it). However, the higher weight of a BEV increases the amount of tire/road dust produced.

Is it worth it? I think so, but it isn't as green as you might think. It is much better than the status quo though.

I think someone posted this video on here previously, but it is a fascinating look at what makes electric vehicles (and autonomous vehicles) better than conventional vehicles. • Video Link

That said, the status quo doesn't change all that much. We still need to pave roads using fossil fuels. Still support the same auto-centric lifestyle/development. Now need to retrofit tons of infrastructure to support the vehicles.

If we talk about mass adoption of EVs, sure there is less pollution, but it's a stopgap at best. If actual sustainability isn't considered, it's probably not enough to turn the tide on current climate change.

Hope this isn't too off-topic.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Fastest way? Doubtful.

I guess it really depends on how soon they will be building them on their own.

Grocery stores make a hell of a lot more sense that Canadian Tire and Home Depot parking lots.

I do agree with you there. I suspect Canadian Tire is doing it because they sell gas and other automotive parts and services, so they want in on the action. As for Home Depot, I haven't heard anything about them doing anything. True Ivy has a pin on the map in their parking lot, but that doesn't mean anything.

Ideally, you want to place chargers where people are most likely to use the. Home and work are ideal. Beyond that though, gyms and grocery stores are among the best where people spend a fair bit of time on a regular basis. Any place else is not really concurrent activity. You aren't going to want to walk around the mall for an hour every week.

You or I may not, but some people love shopping. People go on shopping road trips and if you are going to spend a few hours in the mall shopping, then why not charge your car for the return trip.

This is a strawman.

More of a hyperbole, but point taken.

Very debatable. If you had zero clue about EVs, you wouldn't think they were served at all, because there are no chargers at the OnRoutes. And this is probably what most of the public thinks.

Meh. Unless they are looking for them, most people don't notice EV charging stations.

They should have OnRoutes? I mean, I'm not out here saying that the lack of infrastructure, charging or otherwise is excusable. I think it's pretty appalling how there isn't a single OnRoute on the way to Montreal.

No argument from me. My point is if you want to prioritize the OnRoutes, you are going to miss out on a lot of routes since they are only on highways 400 and 401. The following 400 series highways do not have OnRoutes: 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 409, 410, 412, 416, 417, 418, 420, 427 and QEW. Below is a map from PlugShare of existing and planned CCS chargers.

Sure. Fill the gap. And I would bet that eventually will happen. Ivy would probably fill gaps like these. But realistically, there is an order of magnitude more traffic going down the 401 than Hwy 7.

Maybe, but as I have said before (and others have agreed), Hwy 7 is a preferable route for BEVs. With ICEVs many take the 416 to 401 without a second thought as to how much extra gas they are using. With a BEV, you get better viability as to how much energy you are using.

The populations of these communities en route is also ridiculously small.

Once again, who cares about the size of the local population. People use DC Fast chargers along their route, not near their home.

And there's very few trips where the 401 isn't out of the way.

Any destination west of Belleville, the 401 is about 40km out of your way from central Ottawa. It may not seem like much, but if you also consider the lower speed (wind resistance is proportional to the square of the velocity), it adds up. There is a reason why Greyhound has traditionally used Hwy 7 for trips to Toronto.

Honestly, this sounds more like a personal preference because you want to take Hwy 7. If we're going to talk about provincial highways which need more infrastructure, I'd say there's way better candidates than Hwy 7 (6, 8, 10 and 11 for examples).

I used Hwy 7 as an example, not an exclusive list. There are many other highways that are candidates. That is my point.

Achieving larger numbers of fast chargers is difficult though when you don't have concentration of users. Putting in the high voltage lines to the OnRoutes to feed a bank of 20 charging spots is much more defensible than spending a similar amount to finally service 4 spots near Havelock.

The issue usually isn't the grid but that the local business installing the charger not wanting to pay to upgrade their service. Hydro One will have significant headroom on their local grid to handle a few DC Fast Chargers.

Or not buy an EV.....

If you wish.

Creating the conditions to make EV ownership possible for 10 drivers will always achieve more than subsidizing one driver. That's my point. Direct subsidies do nothing more than help a lot of suburbanites with above average incomes get a discount on a new car.

If you think purpose of the subsidies are to help the car buyer, then I have some oceanfront property in Saskatchewan to sell you.

Absolutely. Another example that shows how absurd our current policy is. The same money spent electrifying Canada Post or buying charging stations for every taxi company in Canada would do more to cut emissions in 5 years than the $5000 rebates did.

While I agree with your statement, the purpose of the subsidy is to not cut emissions in the short term, but to stimulate development of the technology in the long run. Once we reach cost parody, the vehicle subsidy will no longer be needed.

Practically speaking we need to be able to travel to Toronto and Ottawa. So the range needs to be there to be able to do that in a reasonable amount of time. So I wouldn't buy anything that wasn't long range. Especially if it's our only vehicle. A PHEV almost seems pointless to us. At that point, we'd both rather just buy another gas car and wait till there are better EV options on the market.

How is a PHEV pointless (assuming it has decent range)? Your daily mileage is so low that it could be done entirely on electricity. The gas engine is only there for road trips and times when you weren't able to charge.

In Ottawa? Ha ha ha. This town will never be pedestrian friendly. I have told my wife though, I hope to retire in a place that is pedestrian and transit friendly. Even if it's outside Canada. I have zero desire to spend my older years wasting good chunks of it inside a car.

LOL. Victoria is a nice place to retire (got to give a shout out to my alma mater).

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

True Ivy has a pin on the map in their parking lot, but that doesn't mean anything.

Ivy is building them at Home Depots. My parents live near one in Toronto. My dad told me that he noticed construction months back. I get that have a deal with Home Depot. And that Electrify Canada has a deal with CT. But boy do these kinds of places — to be waiting for a charge. The only reason I can see for Home Depot is to target tradesmen shopping for and picking up supplies.

Originally Posted by roger1818

You or I may not, but some people love shopping. People go on shopping road trips and if you are going to spend a few hours in the mall shopping, then why not charge your car for the return trip.

That makes sense at an outlet mall. But it makes no sense at all if you want to enable regular charging. The question here is what are you building chargers for. Are you building them for people to top up? Or as genuine alternatives for those who can't charge at work or home? If the latter, then you should be targeting the most common and longest duration activities aside from work. And I can't think of anything more than grocery shopping and gym workouts that people do regularly and for long enough that the car is parked long enough to charge.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Meh. Unless they are looking for them, most people don't notice EV charging stations.

Except when you place them in highly visible locations like service centres. If you want to convince the average person that EVs are both viable and coming, you have to regularize them by putting them in places where they will see that there's no difference between an ICEV and an EV.

Originally Posted by roger1818

No argument from me. My point is if you want to prioritize the OnRoutes, you are going to miss out on a lot of routes since they are only on highways 400 and 401. The following 400 series highways do not have OnRoutes: 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 409, 410, 412, 416, 417, 418, 420, 427 and QEW.

A lot of the those other 400 series highway are too short to warrant chargers. You want a charging station on the 3.3km 420 or the 5.6km long 409 or the 9.2km 418? Or they are largely urban/suburban like the 410, 427 or 404. From your list the 402, 417 and the QEW are arguably the only places that really need a charging station. Even the 416 can be exempted if there were OnRoutes closer to the 401 junction.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Maybe, but as I have said before (and others have agreed), Hwy 7 is a preferable route for BEVs. With ICEVs many take the 416 to 401 without a second thought as to how much extra gas they are using. With a BEV, you get better viability as to how much energy you are using.
...
Any destination west of Belleville, the 401 is about 40km out of your way from central Ottawa. It may not seem like much, but if you also consider the lower speed (wind resistance is proportional to the square of the velocity), it adds up. There is a reason why Greyhound has traditionally used Hwy 7 for trips to Toronto.

The reason Greyhound takes the route is because their buses don't travel at 120 kph, so the only way to gain something on average speeds is a slightly shorter route. This is nonsensical for the average driver. Especially if you want people to convert to BEVs. You want them to take a route that is slower, has less divided highway, just to save 40km, or 20 mins of driving at 120 kph?

Originally Posted by roger1818

If you think purpose of the subsidies are to help the car buyer, then I have some oceanfront property in Saskatchewan to sell you.
...
While I agree with your statement, the purpose of the subsidy is to not cut emissions in the short term, but to stimulate development of the technology in the long run. Once we reach cost parody, the vehicle subsidy will no longer be needed.

Given that Canada doesn't actually manufacture BEVs, whose development are we trying to support? If we were cutting cheques to the Big 3 to retool their Ontario plants to produce EVs, I'd agree with you. Otherwise, it's pretty laughable to suggest a few hundred million dollars in Canadian EV subsidies is helping to get global BEV prices to ICEV parity. There was no lofty goal behind these subsidies. It was an easy political strategy to win suburban voters, while bolstering green credentials. Simple as that.

Originally Posted by roger1818

LOL. Victoria is a nice place to retire (got to give a shout out to my alma mater).

Pfft. No way I'd move to a more expensive and more boring city.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Ivy is building them at Home Depots. My parents live near one in Toronto. My dad told me that he noticed construction months back. I get that have a deal with Home Depot. And that Electrify Canada has a deal with CT. But boy do these kinds of places — to be waiting for a charge. The only reason I can see for Home Depot is to target tradesmen shopping for and picking up supplies.

Interesting. That’s the first I have heard of that. It’s also surprising since I read that Ivy was doing the rural stations this year and waiting until next year for the urban ones.

Your point about contractors makes some sense. There are a huge slew of BEV trucks coming out in the next couple years, so maybe they are trying to get ahead of the game.

That makes sense at an outlet mall.

It doesn’t need to be an outlet mall. I know people who will drive to the Salmon Run Mall in Watertown or the Destiny USA Mall in Syracuse. Even the Walmart in Ogdensburg is a destination. It’s not uncommon for them to shop for a few Few hours.

But it makes no sense at all if you want to enable regular charging. The question here is what are you building chargers for. Are you building them for people to top up? Or as genuine alternatives for those who can't charge at work or home? If the latter, then you should be targeting the most common and longest duration activities aside from work.

Business are targeting their customers. They don’t really care if they are topping up while they shop or are as part of their regular routine as long as they are shopping and more importantly, spend money. Are you proposing that the government ban charging stations from locations that you don’t think are appropriate or do you just think that it’s a waste of their time and money?

And I can't think of anything more than grocery shopping and gym workouts that people do regularly and for long enough that the car is parked long enough to charge.

Different people have different interests. Some go see movies regularly, some go shopping, some go to the gym, some like to eat out, some spend hours at the rink, etc. Just because you don’t do it regularly doesn’t mean others don’t.

Except when you place them in highly visible locations like service centres. If you want to convince the average person that EVs are both viable and coming, you have to regularize them by putting them in places where they will see that there's no difference between an ICEV and an EV.

I think you are over estimating how observant the average person is. People see what interests them.

A lot of the those other 400 series highway are too short to warrant chargers. You want a charging station on the 3.3km 420 or the 5.6km long 409 or the 9.2km 418? Or they are largely urban/suburban like the 410, 427 or 404.

You are probably right regarding those. I don’t go to Toronto all that much so I’m not familiar with it’s highways.

From your list the 402, 417 and the QEW are arguably the only places that really need a charging station. Even the 416 can be exempted if there were OnRoutes closer to the 401 junction.

I would probably add the 403 and maybe even the 407 (politics aside) to the list of highways that probably should have OnRoute stops but don’t.

The reason Greyhound takes the route is because their buses don't travel at 120 kph, so the only way to gain something on average speeds is a slightly shorter route.

That might be another factor but I wouldn’t discount the fuel savings as being irrelevant.

This is nonsensical for the average driver. Especially if you want people to convert to BEVs. You want them to take a route that is slower, has less divided highway, just to save 40km, or 20 mins of driving at 120 kph?

I’m not saying that EVs should be banned from the 401. I’m saying that the shorter route is more desirable because of the time saved.

Given that Canada doesn't actually manufacture BEVs, whose development are we trying to support? If we were cutting cheques to the Big 3 to retool their Ontario plants to produce EVs, I'd agree with you. Otherwise, it's pretty laughable to suggest a few hundred million dollars in Canadian EV subsidies is helping to get global BEV prices to ICEV parity. There was no lofty goal behind these subsidies. It was an easy political strategy to win suburban voters, while bolstering green credentials. Simple as that.

Given that about only about 3% of new vehicles sold are plug-in (thus eligible for the rebate) and many people don’t buy new cars (only new cars are eligible) I’m not sur how many votes they are winning.

Pfft. No way I'd move to a more expensive and more boring city.

Victoria isn’t nearly as expensive as Vancouver and it certainly isn’t as boring as Ottawa.