The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[WarrenC12]

I'd be pretty hesitant to buy a new ICE today unless you're leasing or selling in 5 years or less. This market is changing very quickly compared to the products in it, which people often keep for 8-10 years. As soon as new sales start to shift dramatically, used values will drop through the floor. Just my 2 cents.

You'll never go wrong buying a $5k beater of a reputable manufacturer (like Toyota).

[esquire]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'd be pretty hesitant to buy a new ICE today unless you're leasing or selling in 5 years or less. This market is changing very quickly compared to the products in it, which people often keep for 8-10 years. As soon as new sales start to shift dramatically, used values will drop through the floor. Just my 2 cents.

You'll never go wrong buying a $5k beater of a reputable manufacturer (like Toyota).

Used values drop through the floor no matter what, though, maybe unless you happen to buy something that turns out to be a rare collector car years down the road. The 2013 CUV I mentioned that I'll be replacing soon is worth at most 1/3 of its original value. By the time I actually do replace it, it will probably be closer to 1/4.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'd be pretty hesitant to buy a new ICE today unless you're leasing or selling in 5 years or less. This market is changing very quickly compared to the products in it, which people often keep for 8-10 years. As soon as new sales start to shift dramatically, used values will drop through the floor. Just my 2 cents.

It's a very interesting time period. The tech is improving so fast that it is going to have an effect on both ICEV and other BEVs.

Think about it this way. 5 years ago the lowest priced Tesla was an $80k Model S. Today it's a $50k Model 3 that has more range than the middle Model S are its launch 9 years ago. So over the course of a 4 yr lease, if we expect standard range to improve by 10-20%, and MSRP to come down by 10-20% (or new models to open up in a lower category), your car could devalue 20-30% over and and above normal depreciation.

To make matters worse, every large automaker (except Tesla) is only on Gen 1 of their skateboard/platform for most models. So there's a high likelihood of a major refresh for every one of these models in the next 4-5 years, only making depreciation risk worse.

On the ICEV side, the depreciation is really a question of how much BEVs take off and how bad the carbon tax bites. Keep in mind that the government's official target is 30% of sales by 2030. Several automakers are higher. Ford says 40% by 2030 in North America for example. But even if we're at a generous 50-60% of sales by 2030, that's only 20-25% of vehicles on the road that will be electric. There will probably still be a market for used ICEVs then. Though depreciation would be a bit higher.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

You'll never go wrong buying a $5k beater of a reputable manufacturer (like Toyota).

Probably the way to go in the interim. That said, I really wouldn't be all that worried about getting an ICEV before 2013-2024. Though, it's probably a good idea to really focus on fuel economy because the carbon tax will force depreciation in the outlying years. From 2025 though, the math looks really bad. Those cars will depreciate to near zero well before the end of their useful life.

I wonder if we'll see the Osborne effect on auto sales from 2023-2027.

Ultimately, the coming changes are so substantial that whatever you buy is going to be near zero in value inside of 10 years used.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by esquire

Used values drop through the floor no matter what, though, maybe unless you happen to buy something that turns out to be a rare collector car years down the road. The 2013 CUV I mentioned that I'll be replacing soon is worth at most 1/3 of its original value. By the time I actually do replace it, it will probably be closer to 1/4.

With the exception of right now.

I got more money on a vehicle trade in today, than 2 years ago with 50,000km less on the odo.

Used vehicles are selling above MSRP for new.

That said, I recognize this is a temporary blip because of supply chain issues.

Its what made me buy new ICE this year, thinking I should be able to drive until I can get a EV pick up.

The electric F150 wont cut it for me at current stats, but its a good start. Give it 5-6 years and I imagine it starts to be competitive.

Hopefully Cybertruck comes to fruition between now and then as well.

[Truenorth00]

Was curious about how widespread electric heating was in the country. I always assumed it was mostly just Quebec. Was surprised at what I found. A bit of dated link, but I think still substantially valid for this discussion:

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/...2/t002-eng.htm

Quebec is already at 85% electric heating for homes. That was expected. What I didn't expect was how prevalent electric heating was in the Maritimes, Manitoba and BC. Newfoundland was at 71%. New Brunswick at 66%. BC at 39%. And Manitoba at 37%. That's every region of the country. All kinds of different climates covered. There's a lot more electric heating in the country than most people think. And really it's most just Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan that are substantially behind the rest of the country.

That actually bodes well for conversion to all-electric homes. Especially for the oil users in the Maritimes (PEI at 76%!!) where it has to often be trucked and stored at the home. They may be the low hanging fruit that the feds should focus on converting first in the next 10-20 years.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Was curious about how widespread electric heating was in the country. I always assumed it was mostly just Quebec. Was surprised at what I found. A bit of dated link, but I think still substantially valid for this discussion:

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/...2/t002-eng.htm

Quebec is already at 85% electric heating for homes. That was expected. What I didn't expect was how prevalent electric heating was in the Maritimes, Manitoba and BC. Newfoundland was at 71%. New Brunswick at 66%. BC at 39%. And Manitoba at 37%. That's every region of the country. All kinds of different climates covered. There's a lot more electric heating in the country than most people think. And really it's most just Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan that are substantially behind the rest of the country.

That actually bodes well for conversion to all-electric homes. Especially for the oil users in the Maritimes (PEI at 76%!!) where it has to often be trucked and stored at the home. They may be the low hanging fruit that the feds should focus on converting first in the next 10-20 years.

My previous home had an electric furnace and unless the carbon tax changes the situation drastically I would never do that again. My hydro bills in the winter were exorbitant compared to my current natural gas furnace. Manitoba Hydro subtly discourages electric furnace use by referring to high operating costs in its marketing materials... I'm not sure what the price gap is like in other jurisdictions but I suspect that uptake of electric heat in Manitoba will be restricted mainly to places that aren't connected to the natural gas distribution grid and therefore have no other practical options.

[MolsonExport]

Anybody else notice how much Enbridge NG bills have climbed as of late? My bills are practically double what they were before, without any corresponding increase in use.

Did I mention how much I hate Byzantine invoices (electricity, gas, water, mobile phone....all of which are designed to overwhelm the recipient with information without actually providing clear information about how your bill is calculated).

"other enbridge charges"
"delivery"
"storage"
"windfart"
"jelly donut"

[jamincan]

My parents used to have a closed loop geothermal system in their old house and I recall the cost being quite reasonable at the time.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'd be pretty hesitant to buy a new ICE today unless you're leasing or selling in 5 years or less. This market is changing very quickly compared to the products in it, which people often keep for 8-10 years. As soon as new sales start to shift dramatically, used values will drop through the floor. Just my 2 cents.

You'll never go wrong buying a $5k beater of a reputable manufacturer (like Toyota).

Won't change that fast.

On another note, Car & Driver reports their Model 3 failed to deliver on the implied EV promise of radically lower maintenance:

Our Tesla Model 3 Hasn't Delivered Big Savings in Maintenance Costs
We've also spent serious money on windshield, roof, and tire replacement.
BY DAVE VANDERWERP
JUL 29, 2021

30,000-Mile Update
One of the pitches we hear often on the switch to EV ownership is that electric vehicles are cheaper to maintain. But, as we close in on 40,000 miles in a Tesla Model 3, the actual savings in service costs is turning out to be quite minimal.

Sure, the Model 3 needs no oil changes, which in theory should save us significant cost. However, the Model 3's requirement that we lubricate the brake calipers every year or 12,500 miles—something specified for areas that use road salt in the winter months—has cost nearly as much, totaling $432 for three such services thus far, which often also include a tire rotation. Although that's less than the $539 we spent on maintenance for our BMW M340i or the $728 for our Kia Telluride, that savings works out to between $6 and $15 a month over the course of our nearly two years of ownership, which would be barely noticeable in an owner's budget.

Although not included in our official tally of regular maintenance or normal wear, we've had some pricey fixes as well. For example, a stone chip in the glass roof set us back $1200 for a new one, and we paid $1100 for a new windshield for the same reason. And, since Tesla owns all of its service centers and maintains tight control over its parts, there are fewer options to shop around for service in cases like these than for most other cars.

By 30,000 miles, the original Michelin Primacy MXM4 tires were shot. We often get twice as many miles on all-season tires, but rapid tire wear is something that's a common topic on Model 3 owner's forums. At least part of the issue is that the Tesla version of these tires start with 1.5 32nds of an inch less tread depth than the off-the-shelf MXM4s. Although it might not sound like much, that's 20 percent less usable tread depth...

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...y-maintenance/

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Won't change that fast.

It will change faster than many expect. Money talks. I'd love to revisit this claim in 3 and then 5 years.

Originally Posted by whatnext

30,000-Mile Update
One of the pitches we hear often on the switch to EV ownership is that electric vehicles are cheaper to maintain. But, as we close in on 40,000 miles in a Tesla Model 3, the actual savings in service costs is turning out to be quite minimal.

Sure, the Model 3 needs no oil changes, which in theory should save us significant cost. However, the Model 3's requirement that we lubricate the brake calipers every year or 12,500 miles—something specified for areas that use road salt in the winter months—has cost nearly as much, totaling $432 for three such services thus far, which often also include a tire rotation. Although that's less than the $539 we spent on maintenance for our BMW M340i or the $728 for our Kia Telluride, that savings works out to between $6 and $15 a month over the course of our nearly two years of ownership, which would be barely noticeable in an owner's budget.

Counterpoint: I've spent $0 on lubrication for my Model 3. I have 55K kms on it, tires are still in good shape (but I have winters too so they don't have all of that mileage on them).

$539 for a BMW M340i sounds like about 1.5 oil changes. There's simply no comparison there. They are doing the full manufacturer suggestions for the Tesla but not the BMW? No mention of the premium gas required by the BMW vs. the cost of electricity? Give me a break.

It's clear EVs have significantly less moving parts and fluids compared to an ICE vehicle. They don't have belts or other parts that wear with time and the extreme heat of a combustion engine. The biggest concern by far was the high voltage battery pack, and they seem to be outperforming initial estimates, particularly with a good Battery Management System to regulate charging, discharging, and temperature.

[ssiguy]

This is a key problem with today's EVs...............they are incredibly heavy and hence result in much higher tire erosion. The tires you have on an EV are the same tires that they have on a similar size & make non-EV vehicle but have to bear the wear and tear that naturally comes with having to support a much higher weight.

Of course, due to EVs still be relatively new and the battery technology still being developed to it's fullest, means that in a few years when the vehicles really start showing their mileage, the issue of battery replacement will come up and that will be an extremely high expense.

[Doady]

The government should consider banning elevators that are not for accessibility purposes. Able-bodied people should be using the stairs instead, and new multi-family housing should be fesigned so that such people can and must use the stairs for each unit. In other words, Canadian cities should start modelling themselves after Montreal instead of Vancouver. Build more low-rise or mid-rise apartment complexes with winding staircases, and no more tall and skinny blue-green glass towers with no insulation.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

This is a key problem with today's EVs...............they are incredibly heavy and hence result in much higher tire erosion. The tires you have on an EV are the same tires that they have on a similar size & make non-EV vehicle but have to bear the wear and tear that naturally comes with having to support a much higher weight.

Of course, due to EVs still be relatively new and the battery technology still being developed to it's fullest, means that in a few years when the vehicles really start showing their mileage, the issue of battery replacement will come up and that will be an extremely high expense.

No, Teslas tear through tires because of the torque and people flooring it because it's so much fun.

The regen braking is also a bit harder on the back tires because they do the bulk of the stopping, vs. a traditional braking car putting more pressure on the front tires.

Good news is the brake pads last forever.

I would equate a battery replacement on an EV after 300-500k kms in the same category as an engine and/or transmission rebuild on an ICE. It will eventually happen to any car that lasts that long, and some owners will just scrap it at that point.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Of course, due to EVs still be relatively new and the battery technology still being developed to it's fullest, means that in a few years when the vehicles really start showing their mileage, the issue of battery replacement will come up and that will be an extremely high expense.

Battery costs will be half over the 8-10 years that any car bought today would heavily wear down their battery. The cost would be comparable to the replacing the transmission on an ICEV.

And most automakers offer warranties or battery degradation guarantees for at least that long. Realistically, regular drivers would not need a battery change for 15+ years.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

No, Teslas tear through tires because of the torque and people flooring it because it's so much fun.

And this is pretty much true of any sport sedan. People who complain about this have never owned a BMW 3, MB C, or Lexus IS.

[digitboy]

Originally Posted by Doady

The government should consider banning elevators that are not for accessibility purposes. Able-bodied people should be using the stairs instead, and new multi-family housing should be fesigned so that such people can and must use the stairs for each unit. In other words, Canadian cities should start modelling themselves after Montreal instead of Vancouver. Build more low-rise or mid-rise apartment complexes with winding staircases, and no more tall and skinny blue-green glass towers with no insulation.

Urban sprawl is the worst model to follow. I would do the exact opposite of what you are suggesting.

[MolsonExport]

Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

"It is a statement of fact, we cannot be any more certain; it is unequivocal and indisputable that humans are warming the planet."

IPCC report key points:

Global surface temperature was 1.09C higher in the decade between 2011-2020 than between 1850-1900.
The past five years have been the hottest on record since 1850
The recent rate of sea level rise has nearly tripled compared with 1901-1971
Human influence is "very likely" (90%) the main driver of the global retreat of glaciers since the 1990s and the decrease in Arctic sea-ice
It is "virtually certain" that hot extremes including heatwaves have become more frequent and more intense since the 1950s, while cold events have become less frequent and less severe

The new report also makes clear that the warming we've experienced to date has made changes to many of our planetary support systems that are irreversible on timescales of centuries to millennia.

The oceans will continue to warm and become more acidic. Mountain and polar glaciers will continue melting for decades or centuries.

"The consequences will continue to get worse for every bit of warming," said Prof Hawkins.

"And for many of these consequences, there's no going back."

When it comes to sea level rise, the scientists have modelled a likely range for different levels of emissions.

However, a rise of around 2m by the end of this century cannot be ruled out - and neither can a 5m rise by 2150.

[O-tacular]

After this summer (and all the smoky summers we've had recently) it's beginning to feel pretty apocalyptic.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

After this summer (and all the smoky summers we've had recently), I'm really beginning to feel like we are locked in to some irreversible Climate deathtrap.

Doomerism is tempting. But wrong. We have technological capacity to substantially cut emissions. It's a question of political willingness on whether we are willing to dedicate the economic resources to do so. And the longer we wait, the steeper the bill and the more drastic the changes required will be.

We need to stop pussyfooting around and go big. We need to ramp up investment in public and active transport, electric vehicle charging infrastructure and home heating electrification. We should be planning to arrive at 2040 with 100% electrified homes and vehicles. And we need to mandate better cities and better homes. No more gas hookups. 100% all electric new homes, 100% 15 min communities in every new subdivision and zero expansion of the urban boundary. All federal funding needs to be conditional on cities complying with these goals. No new homebuyer should be getting a CMHC insurance if their home has a gas hookup after say 2023. On the industrial side, let's work with the oil and gas sector to at least end flaring and methane leaks as quickly as possible.

I've mostly written off conservatives on this file. They don't seem interested in anything but excuses for inaction and deflection. And while the Liberals have been better, they still seem to have so many other priorities over climate change. I always wonder what could have have been accomplished with even half of the money they spent on the CCB going to infrastructure.

[acottawa]

Climate denial of what the actual climate models say is not going to help.

Spending 100s of billions on virtue signalling that will have a rounding error effect on the climate is not only pointless but will use up resources that could be much better spent on adaption.

People can stick their heads in the sand all they want, but it doesn’t change the reality or the cold hard math. Barring a completely unforeseen technology that completely changes everything (and maybe there is a carbon Norman Borlaug out there somewhere), catastrophic climate change is happening. If it isn’t too late already (and with the feedback mechanisms that have been triggered already there is a fair amount of evidence it is), it will be to late by the time electric cars become widespread in the 2040s, or China phases out coal in the 2050s or world population peaks in the 2060s. We we need to take a hard look at actual projections from actual climate and start developing a mitigation strategy, which will cost hundreds of billions.