HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2020, 9:25 PM
zalf zalf is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 658
Quote:
Originally Posted by drew View Post
The battery question is also very valid. There is pollution associated with the production and mining of the materials, and how much do we really know at this point with respect to lifecycles, recycling and disposal of these components?
You're definitely correct that EVs are not a silver bullet for climate change. They are better than internal combustion, though. Better is good.

Here are some numbers for lifecycle costs from a UBC study on the subject for City of Vancouver. I've come across similar conclusions from other sources in the past as well. It's roughly 1/2 the lifecycle carbon cost for an EV versus a similar ICE car.

https://sustain.ubc.ca/sites/default...es_Kukreja.pdf

Quote:
Carbon emissions and energy consumption are analyzed for each phase from cradle-to-grave for both vehicles: raw material production, vehicle manufacture, transportation, operation, and decommissioning. The analysis shows that the electric vehicle has notably lower carbon emissions and lower energy consumption per kilometer. After considering all phases, the Ford Focus emits392.4gCO2-eq/km and Mitsubishi i-MiEV emits 203.0gCO2-eq/km over the vehicle life.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2020, 9:31 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by drew View Post
Last time I checked, those are still valid arguments.
Not really. They were poor arguments back then, and now they have mostly been abandoned even by the climate change deniers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lars65 View Post
It's not that the arguments are invalid, rather that they're vastly overstated.
Yes.

Yes, for EVs to be fully emissionless they need to be powered from emission free electricity, and built from emission free factories. But that is possible, and is a problem that can be dealt with separately from the transport emission problem. If we stick with gas vehicles, they can never be made carbon neutral (except by direct air carbon capture).

And if you're in Canada, and especially Manitoba, there's a good chance you're not "moving the emissions elsewhere", even today.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2020, 10:57 PM
drew's Avatar
drew drew is offline
the first stamp is free
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hippyville, Winnipeg
Posts: 7,985
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
Not really. They were poor arguments back then, and now they have mostly been abandoned even by the climate change deniers.

Yes, for EVs to be fully emissionless they need to be powered from emission free electricity, and built from emission free factories. But that is possible, and is a problem that can be dealt with separately from the transport emission problem. If we stick with gas vehicles, they can never be made carbon neutral (except by direct air carbon capture).

And if you're in Canada, and especially Manitoba, there's a good chance you're not "moving the emissions elsewhere", even today.
You seem to avoid debating the points.

I am not a climate change denier, but I am also not a blind EV fanboy.

All things being equal, what is the difference in the net energy input to building, maintaining powering and operating EVs versus ICEs?

I would argue, the amount of energy required is probably similar between the two, and we are mostly changing where that energy is burned.

I am not saying its a bad thing, but we need to move away from considering EVs to being this ideal of zero emissions. It's not all that accurate.

And yeah, MB has lots of hydro power to go around, but lets not pretend the vast of the world has access to relatively affordable green power.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 1:13 AM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,499
Why do we need to move away from "considering EVs to being this ideal of zero emissions"? With conceivable technology, they are ideal. There's no better alternative except maybe hydrogen. What is important is reducing CO2 use, all the other issues pale in comparison, and fossil fuels have their share of non climate issues also.

What is the difference? Well, they will use less energy for starters as they don't throw away the majority as heat, and that energy can come from non renewable sources. Even if using coal power, EVs are still cleaner, but renewables are rapidly getting cheaper and more widespread, and making electricity emissions free is mandatory if we want to live on this planet If we don't clean up the grid, the question of gas vs electric vehicle is moot, we're screwed regardless. But better to start using EVs and have a chance of not destroying the planet, than not bother trying at all.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 3:36 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 5,881
Let's start by getting this out there - I very much like electric vehicles and have followed them for over 10 years now. I have twice come close to buying one and backed out as I went through the pros/cons of different purchase options.

--

1. I was mostly replying to hunter12 suggesting, somewhat correctly, that the new electric GMC Hummer "surely can't be that environmentally friendly". I was pointing out that the argument that any one electric vehicle isn't "environmentally friendly" applies to all of them more or less equally.

2. Re Hydro. Is it better than coal/natural gas generation? Yes. Better than nuclear? Debatable. Better than solar? Likely not. It is a whole shades and perspective issue. I just know when you the discussion turns to "clean energy" hydro and nuclear are normally both off the table.

3. Electric Vehicle and their "zero emissions" claim just needs to be taken out back and shot. As has been covered that phrasing tried to portray it as having "no harmful emissions ever". From the mining of raw materials to the manufacturing plant building the vehicle, the delivery process getting it to the customers and how the power that charges the vehicle is generated there are a lot of "hidden" steps that currently are not environmental friendly. Driving a Tesla and turning a blind eye to those is about as ignorant to the environment as driving a 70s era Caddy as a daily commuter vehicle. You want to be a champion of the environment in your vehicle of choice to need to face the hard truths and starting calling on companies that make them to be doing better from end to end.

4. The end of life battery question for hybrids and pure electric vehicles is a really big question as is the mining on the materials needed to make those batteries. The mining side alone is similar to the harmful environmental impact of oil fracking. And at end of life when a non-electrical vehicle is abandoned or scraped the amount of toxic material in it is significantly less. This is mostly about the large battery packs in electric vehicles and how collectively we do not have a good handle on the end of life aspects yet.

End of the day if the reason you are getting an electric vehicle purely as it is "environmentally friendly" you likely are not making a fully informed choice. That said none of the personal vehicles beyond a conventional bicycle (yes that means no power assisted bikes) is truly an environmentally friendly choice right now. Maybe one day but we have a long way to go first.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 3:43 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryB View Post
2. Re Hydro. Is it better than coal/natural gas generation? Yes. Better than nuclear? Debatable. Better than solar? Likely not. It is a whole shades and perspective issue. I just know when you the discussion turns to "clean energy" hydro and nuclear are normally both off the table.
That's wrong. Hydro is a clean, renewable form of energy. You can make an argument about the environmental impact of the dams, but that horse left the barn a long time ago... previous generations made the decision to flood northern lands and build the dams. So for better or for worse we now have hydro... how does it not make sense to use the clean energy we have either way to replace internal combustion engines?

Also, manufacturing plant and delivery related emissions are irrelevant since you're going to get that type of environmental overhead with any type of vehicle. What matters here is the impact of the 20 years that the vehicle is likely to be on the road.

The battery issue in terms of manufacturing and disposal is a fair criticism, though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 6:56 PM
cheswick's Avatar
cheswick cheswick is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: South Kildonan
Posts: 2,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
That's wrong. Hydro is a clean, renewable form of energy. You can make an argument about the environmental impact of the dams, but that horse left the barn a long time ago... previous generations made the decision to flood northern lands and build the dams. So for better or for worse we now have hydro... how does it not make sense to use the clean energy we have either way to replace internal combustion engines?

Also, manufacturing plant and delivery related emissions are irrelevant since you're going to get that type of environmental overhead with any type of vehicle. What matters here is the impact of the 20 years that the vehicle is likely to be on the road.

The battery issue in terms of manufacturing and disposal is a fair criticism, though.
I posted earlier in this thread a well sourced video on carbon use for entire life of vehicle (including manufacturing). For typical usage electric vehicles will emit less carbon over their lifetimes, with the possible exception of places that use coal for electricity.
__________________
There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 7:10 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
I posted earlier in this thread a well sourced video on carbon use for entire life of vehicle (including manufacturing). For typical usage electric vehicles will emit less carbon over their lifetimes, with the possible exception of places that use coal for electricity.
I could definitely see the argument against EVs in a place that burns coal for electricity, but depending on where the coal plants are it could still be a benefit... if they're somewhere out in the sticks, you could be displacing exhaust from hundreds of thousands of cars to a giant smokestack located a long way away from the city. That's still a potential benefit. But with hydro there's no issue at all, at least if the hydro infrastructure already exists as it does in Manitoba.

I have no dog in this fight personally... in theory I like the environmental benefits of EVs, but I will pick whatever is less expensive in the long run. And for now that appears to be ICEs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2020, 5:38 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 5,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
That's wrong. Hydro is a clean, renewable form of energy. You can make an argument about the environmental impact of the dams, but that horse left the barn a long time ago... previous generations made the decision to flood northern lands and build the dams. So for better or for worse we now have hydro... how does it not make sense to use the clean energy we have either way to replace internal combustion engines?

Also, manufacturing plant and delivery related emissions are irrelevant since you're going to get that type of environmental overhead with any type of vehicle. What matters here is the impact of the 20 years that the vehicle is likely to be on the road.

The battery issue in terms of manufacturing and disposal is a fair criticism, though.
I am not saying Hydro is a bad choice once the dam is built it is more it has a negative environmental impact. It is actually said that nuclear is in a lot of ways the most environmentally friendly way to generate electricity as it is near zero emission and the negative outputs are fairly small and dense especially per amount of energy generated. That said in the relatively rare times something goes wrong with nuclear the environmental impact is massive and there is that nasty issue of what to do with the spent fuel at end of life. That said locally MB Hydro's decision many years ago to effectively use Lake Winnipeg as a holding basin for generating power has smaller scale impacts but over a much broader time frame.

The question specific to electric vehicles and environmental impact though is more with increased demand is it better for the environment to build a net-new hydro generation station, a nuclear power plant, a solar farm, use and internal combustion engine, etc. Every choice there has negatives and has emissions. There is no true "zero emissions" person vehicle other than a traditional pedal bike and even then the manufacturing and distribution process isn't zero emission.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2020, 9:09 PM
robertocarlos robertocarlos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 820
Gasoline is a waste product from oil. It has to be burned. It may as well be used in an engine.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2020, 5:35 PM
Winnipeg Grump's Avatar
Winnipeg Grump Winnipeg Grump is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 478
The comments coming from people on here sure are revealing...

Within 5 years expect that the manufacturing cost for EV's to be an par with an equivalent ICE version. That from analysts at a little boutique banking outfit known as UBS. I kid, they're a top-30 banking firm in the world.

https://cleantechnica.com/2020/10/22...arity-in-2024/

So if I can buy an electric F-150 that has higher towing capacity than the ICE version and that vehicle has fewer parts to break down, has dramatically lower operating costs, and has all of the features of the ICE version, why would I buy the ICE version? And if your answer is range, then let's talk about fast-charging level 3 charging stations.

Reuse of the batteries isn't exactly a new concern but Tesla and others are all exploring ways of recycling/repurposing those millions of batteries. One use, for example, would be to set up utility-scale storage. The battery might not be sufficient to use in a vehicle any longer but would capably serve as an element in a battery bank for a solar farm.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2020, 7:20 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 5,881
Let's again be clear, I know ICE is dead and electric is the most likely future although I wouldn't count something like fusion completely out (really it has about 1% chance but it could happen).

My main beef goes back to the claim on this forum that an all electric Hummer is bad for the environment based solely on its name. My reply was trying to get across the electric Hummer is not really any better or worse than any other electric vehicle. And that electric vehicles are the unicorns of personal transportation shooting rainbows out their butts as you travel as a lot of owners/advocates try to portray them. Transportation is dirty and environmental harmful just about any way you spin it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2020, 1:40 PM
eman eman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 177
The average car produces 4.6 tons of carbon each year. That works out to 3.5 times its weight. So for ever year you drive you tossed 3.5 cars worth of carbon into the air and every bit of it is still there in the sky.

I read the comments above and many of the issues brought up Tesla addressed on Battery Day, Sept. 22.

You can watch the full AGM and Battery event here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6T9xIeZTds

I hope you have time to watch it. Tesla is doing amazing things and striving to make every part of production net zero least harm. Shareholders brought up some very serious issues and Tesla is up to the challenge.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2020, 8:54 PM
eman eman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 177
Peak ICE

October 23, 2020
Peter Diamandis:
The era of the internal combustion engine (ICE) car is ending. We may have reached “peak ICE.”

As Elon Musk predicted during Tesla’s recent “Battery Day” presentation, in the long-term there won’t be an ICE industry.

From here on out, it’s all about electric vehicles and autonomous ride-sharing, and the implications for society and the automotive industry are HUGE.

Need evidence? Oil demand from passenger vehicles is predicted to have already peaked, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, and demand from overall road transport is expected to peak in 2031.

Electric vehicles (EVs) currently displace the need for 1 million barrels of oil each day. And by 2040, EVs are projected to disrupt demand of over 17 million barrels of oil per day — a figure steadily on the rise as EV costs plummet.

This year, EVs are expected to surpass 2.8% market share globally. While this might seem negligible, growth is accelerating at an unprecedented rate. EVs are projected to make up 10% of new car sales in 2025, and over 25% by 2030.

As energy expert Ramez Naam explains, “Their growth rate is phenomenal. It took 20 years to sell the first million electric cars. It took 18 months to sell the next million. It took 4 months to sell the fifth million. That is the pace of this change. This is growing twice as fast as solar.”

Stumping forecasters again and again, this surge is driven by pure economic advantage. While personal vehicles currently cost $0.53 per mile, autonomous electric vehicles are expected to vastly undercut this threshold at only $0.04 per mile.

And even though EVs have historically been more expensive than ICE-powered cars, EVs are far cheaper to operate and maintain. The yearly cost to operate an EV in the U.S. stands at about $485, lower than half the $1,117 cost to operate a gas-powered vehicle.

During Elon’s Battery Day presentation, he laid out Tesla’s plan to drive EV costs even lower by revolutionizing the battery industry and redesigning the fundamentals of the battery cell itself. The company’s new ”tabless” battery represents a range of technical breakthroughs that result in a 5x increase in energy, a 6x increase in power, and a 16% increase in range.

These achievements in battery technology along with Tesla’s advancements in the battery production process could halve the cost of producing every kilowatt-hour.

With increased economies of scale, we could see a fully-autonomous $25,000 Tesla model within three years.

Continuing declines in battery and production costs will ultimately make an EV purchase so obvious that you won’t need to calculate the long-term payoff.

Going electric will be a foregone conclusion.

*******
The key take away is:Expontial growth is happening here and the sooner you can recognize an exponential growth curve the more you can profit from it.

As energy expert Ramez Naam explains, “Their growth rate is phenomenal. It took 20 years to sell the first million electric cars. It took 18 months to sell the next million. It took 4 months to sell the fifth million. That is the pace of this change. This is growing twice as fast as solar.”

Last edited by eman; Oct 31, 2020 at 9:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2021, 2:10 PM
eman eman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 177
EVs can't be stopped now.

"Biden plans to replace government fleet with electric vehicles"

KEY POINTS
President Joe Biden plans to replace the government’s vehicle fleet with electric vehicles assembled in the U.S.
He announced the plan Monday when signing a new “Buy American” executive order."

******

Are you convinced yet? The US gov has over 600,000 vehicles. TSLA, WKHS and all EV stocks are going to hit all time highs today. Of course there can be a correction, but its harder to say EV stocks are over valued when good news just keeps coming.





http://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/25/biden...-vehicles.html

Last edited by eman; Jan 26, 2021 at 2:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2021, 3:38 PM
buzzg buzzg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 7,799
Apple is also working on an electric car. Reports suggest they could be partnering with Hyundai.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2021, 10:55 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 5,881
Re the Apple car, it is reportedly being worked on with Kia, a brand wholly controlled by Hyundai. It would also be made in the USA if it goes to market. Hyundai is worried about the possible implications to their top tier brand on the Apple car partnership.

Sony also has a future car concept with a real world prototype that some people are advocating for them to turn into a go to market product. It is currently just a test bed for different technology Sony is working on to sell to other manufacturers.

In terms of the USA plan, I doubt they convert 100% of the fleet to pure EVs. The military, Homeland security, the Secret Service, FBI, CIA, Parks, Forestry, etc will all have valid use cases that mean pure EVs are not viable.

Take the CIA for example, imagine being a field agent in a country with near zero EVs and being told by a poorly thought through US policy that you need to use a pure EV. Your cover could quickly be blown by that. Forestry, Parks and Homeland security often work in remote areas and can't stop to wait for their EV to charge.

I think the best might be say 80% EV, then a mix of hybrids and pure ICE/diesel based on functional requirements.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2021, 2:07 PM
WildCake WildCake is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 822
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryB View Post
Re the Apple car, it is reportedly being worked on with Kia, a brand wholly controlled by Hyundai. It would also be made in the USA if it goes to market. Hyundai is worried about the possible implications to their top tier brand on the Apple car partnership.

Sony also has a future car concept with a real world prototype that some people are advocating for them to turn into a go to market product. It is currently just a test bed for different technology Sony is working on to sell to other manufacturers.

In terms of the USA plan, I doubt they convert 100% of the fleet to pure EVs. The military, Homeland security, the Secret Service, FBI, CIA, Parks, Forestry, etc will all have valid use cases that mean pure EVs are not viable.

Take the CIA for example, imagine being a field agent in a country with near zero EVs and being told by a poorly thought through US policy that you need to use a pure EV. Your cover could quickly be blown by that. Forestry, Parks and Homeland security often work in remote areas and can't stop to wait for their EV to charge.

I think the best might be say 80% EV, then a mix of hybrids and pure ICE/diesel based on functional requirements.
Good points. Those will likely be the later adopting departments as the technology becomes more widespread and reliable, and as availability of gas stations start to dwindle.

I could imagine the military would be the last to adopt it to replace their armoured transports and assault vehicles, although there might be a case for a quieter running vehicle that doesn't produce detectable emissions, if EV gets to equivalent power/durability as diesel.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2021, 3:52 PM
Wyku Wyku is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Saskatoon, SK
Posts: 523
The first Saskatoon/Saskatchewan Tesla dealership has opened!

https://saskatoon.ctvnews.ca/first-t...toon-1.5283753
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2021, 4:26 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 5,881
I would also think the presidential limo and related Secret Service support vehicles will also be late to transition too. You don't want to find yourself in a situation where you need to drive quickly and aggressively for an unknown length of time to save the leader of the country. It is also speculated that current limo has similar weight to a heavily armored tank.

As Musk is one of the top defense industry contractors I am sure he and a select team at Tesla will be looped in on what is needed for that service to start working on a bid but they will likely be brought in first as more easily to swap out support vehicles, ie the black trucks in the convo loaded with Secret Service agents.

The other huge win for an EV company would be securing a service contract with a police force like the FBI. Many have tried to crack that lucrative market but Ford has a tight grip on it transitioning from Crown Vic, to the Taurus/Explorer combo and now exclusive the Explorer. I've seen it said that Ford has such a tight grip not so much because it makes the best vehicle but it has a deep understanding of how all the add-on pieces work and how police officers interact with the vehicle, such as how to make a seat that works well with a standard load on a service belt (gun, cuffs, etc).

It's one thing to say they are going fully EV but there are a lot of moving pieces and special cases that need to be considered. Something like the postal service with a set route known well in advance is going to be easier to adapt to earlier on than some of these other cases. As I said, for operational reasons I don't think they will ever hit the 100% target but could make a significant conversion without hitting it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:51 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.