Start hoarding your gas powered motor bike. 2035 is the last possible year for gas powered motorcycles to be sold in Canada.

[Pegassus]

Forum Sponsor

That's it!! I'm done. Headed off to the garage and going to invent a steam/coal powered motorcycle. As per the first law of heat and thermal dynamics, I should get about 3km per ton of coal lol.
See how silly this is? You can't get more energy out of said unit of energy (see first law of thermal dynamics).
Batteries are not going to save the planet and electric is no more efficient than the coal plant that produces the hydro to charge said battery.... Actually it's worse because the coal (or nuclear) plant looses about 30% power because it needs to condense it's steam to return it to the boilers (can't pump steam). This waste heat goes straight into the lake as the lake water is used to condense said steam.
Please spare me the feeble argument of solar and wind for recharging (we are 30 billion into Samsung for McGuiny's failed green policy).
ICE are going nowhere. The opposite is true. ICE are getting more and more efficient and cleaner.
I suppose electric is fine for city folks but not for us rural pick-up truck driving rednecks.
Nope, not buying electric, not going to happen until I have no choice (and what a sad day that will be).
Happy apexes.

Lots of people don't understand this, the law of thermal dynamics. You can't cheat nature, you can't cheat the laws of the universe. Electric vehicles won't save an iota of the Earth. They don't produce smoke but they sure will produce millions of tons of spent batteries that are going to fill up the world and it will take the same energy to dispose of them then simply deal with smoke. How much energy is going to be created to build these batteries, how much smoke will their factories produce?

Same thing with a bulldozer. People think it saves 100 people from using shovels at a job site. No it doesn't. You still need 100 people working to build the parts, work the oil fields to get the diesel for it, to make its battery, people to service it, etc,etc. No human work is saved. it is only concentrated into an object.

 

[800over]

Lots of people don't understand this, the law of thermal dynamics. You can't cheat nature, you can't cheat the laws of the universe. Electric vehicles won't save an iota of the Earth. They don't produce smoke but they sure will produce millions of tons of spent batteries that are going to fill up the world and it will take the same energy to dispose of them then simply deal with smoke. How much energy is going to be created to build these batteries, how much smoke will their factories produce?

Same thing with a bulldozer. People think it saves 100 people from using shovels at a job site. No it doesn't. You still need 100 people working to build the parts, work the oil fields to get the diesel for it, to make its battery, people to service it, etc,etc. No human work is saved. it is only concentrated into an object.

I love how you start with a statement you think is fact (EV's won't save the earth). Then follow it with questions that are supposed to support that premise that you don't have the answers to. The law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with pollution. Cradle to grave EV's are more environmentally friendly than ice vehicles NOW. I could look up the info and post it....but you won't believe it anyway. So disagree and THEN I can post the facts and THEN you can make up something about how the source is faulty. If you cannot grasp that solar and wind are cleaner than coal and gas as a starting point (yes batteries are dirty but can be recycled but STILL don't create the emmissions of coal or gas) then there is no arguing with you. Solar is infinite and free! You think burning thousands of barrels of oil over the lifetime of an EV is LESS polluting than making a battery once and then recycling it? That is what you're saying. Only when the electricity that we use to charge our vehicles comes from coal is there even an argument about this.

IF you want to argue that EV's are inferior in terms of cost or ride or ease of use (charging times suck)....you have my ear. But in terms of the environment that ship has sailed.

 

[Brian P]

"Lots of people don't understand this, the law of thermal dynamics."

LOL

Most people can't even spell it, nevermind understand it ...

edit: I'd love to hear the explanation of "entropy" ... (3rd law of thermodynamics)

 

[Nikola Tesla]

The 4 F’s of Propulsion in the universe
(from least advanced to most)

Feet- humans use feet (could be tentacles of a creature)
Feed- feed animals to move things
Fuel- explosion technology (burning fuel, coal, oil...)
Fields- implosion technology

 

[Pegassus]

I'm going to tell you guys what I told my friend when he bought a Tesla a few years back. You are fooling yourselves if you think that you are going to save money for life by getting an EV. Right now it's a novelty so the government doesn't pay attention, they are letting the industry grow. When the industry grows and it becomes the mainstream (more EV's than gasoline cars) then they are going to give it to you.

How much you guys wanna bet that as soon as EV's become the majority and there's no going back, the government will slap a hefty kilowatt tax on the charging of your vehicle? The kilowatt tax will be almost as high as paying $1.20 per litre of fuel. In other words it will eventually cost $70 to recharge your vehicle. You have been warned.

(P.S. Isn't Tesla charging $7 bucks to charge at their stations now? Wasn't it free at the beginning?)

 

[canuck]

I think ev’s are less than 5%. We’ll see what happens in battery technology in the next 5 to 10 years. No single mom will ever be able to afford a battery powered car I think that’s the main problem

 

[Brian P]

Pricing per kWh for lithium batteries at the OEM level was ~$1000/kWh 10 years ago. It's now ~$100/kWh. A 60 kWh battery at that pricing is $6000 (to the OEM, e.g. GM). It's expected that price parity between a combustion-engine vehicle and a comparable EV will happen somewhere around 2025. There are some cases today where the total cost of ownership is already in favour of electric.

 

[AllistonGT]

How much you guys wanna bet that as soon as EV's become the majority and there's no going back, the government will slap a hefty kilowatt tax on the charging of your vehicle? The kilowatt tax will be almost as high as paying $1.20 per litre of fuel. In other words it will eventually cost $70 to recharge your vehicle. You have been warned.

I have to agree with this. What we are paying now for gas taxes will have to be replaced. And it will. At the end of the day there will be no saving $ with EV's

 

[800over]

I have to agree with this. What we are paying now for gas taxes will have to be replaced. And it will. At the end of the day there will be no saving $ with EV's

As long as the cost is close that is fine with me. There is no way EVs become the majority any time soon. Take the oil subsidies away and put that money into EV subsidies and I'll pay the same to use an EV. And BTW Hybrids already do save you $ over their ICE alternatives, and quickly too.

 

[800over]

I'm going to tell you guys what I told my friend when he bought a Tesla a few years back. You are fooling yourselves if you think that you are going to save money for life by getting an EV. Right now it's a novelty so the government doesn't pay attention, they are letting the industry grow. When the industry grows and it becomes the mainstream (more EV's than gasoline cars) then they are going to give it to you.

How much you guys wanna bet that as soon as EV's become the majority and there's no going back, the government will slap a hefty kilowatt tax on the charging of your vehicle? The kilowatt tax will be almost as high as paying $1.20 per litre of fuel. In other words it will eventually cost $70 to recharge your vehicle. You have been warned.

(P.S. Isn't Tesla charging $7 bucks to charge at their stations now? Wasn't it free at the beginning?)

We're already paying a tax because we have OVERsupply of electricity....we PAY to send electricity to other jurisdictions. We can increase HVs by 10X and still have lots of electricity. The local grids will have no problem. They have been preparing for years. Every night at around 7pm we have loads of electricity (hence the off peak rates). Charge your 300km range car every night at midnight and we'll be good.

We need to pay our fair share of whatever the energy source we use INCLUDING the environmental cost. EVs and hybrids are just way lower in that regard.

 

[Soulcatcher668]

We're already paying a tax because we have OVERsupply of electricity....we PAY to send electricity to other jurisdictions. We can increase HVs by 10X and still have lots of electricity.

This is a warping of the truth.
We do not pay other jurisdictions to take our power. When we have more power than we can use, we sell it.

The problem is, back in 2009 our glorious leader. Mr McGuinty signed 33,000 contracts with 'green energy providers' guaranteeing them above market rates for their power and that we would always buy it regardless of whether we need it or not. Why do you think those windmills popped up everywhere? Certainly not because they are efficient. These are 20 year contracts.

So it's not that we pay others to take the power directly, it is that whomever takes it, pays market rate but we have to pay the difference to those poor green energy providers.

 

[moarmoto]

We always need to have additional capacity to generate electricity. We can't simply build things as needed, since it takes years for projects from start to going in service. Green energy is kind of one of them (though contracts weren't probably the best way about it).

You want the exactly right amount of electricity generation capacity today? That's gonna come with rolling blackouts. To be fair, I'm over simplifying it but it's not as clear cut as some people think.

I work in this industry and there are so many opinions that I hear from people based on partial facts.



Sent from my M2007J20CG using Tapatalk

 

[PrivatePilot]

Do people take any time at all to do a basic Google search on a topic they’re not sure about before speaking authoritatively on it?

Oh, who am I kidding…. ?

 

[Soulcatcher668]

I never stated that we didn't need a surplus or a plan for the future. I too work in the industry, Nuclear to be specific.

There is an entire line on your hydro bill for what I am talking about. It's called the Global adjustment fee. This is the difference between what you pay, and what the government has agreed to pay.

 

[Soulcatcher668]

Do people take any time at all to do a basic Google search on a topic they’re not sure about before speaking authoritatively on it?

Oh, who am I kidding…. ?

Please enlighten me as to where I am wrong. I am always willing to change my views as new information comes up.

 

[800over]

This is a warping of the truth.
We do not pay other jurisdictions to take our power. When we have more power than we can use, we sell it.

The problem is, back in 2009 our glorious leader. Mr McGuinty signed 33,000 contracts with 'green energy providers' guaranteeing them above market rates for their power and that we would always buy it regardless of whether we need it or not. Why do you think those windmills popped up everywhere? Certainly not because they are efficient. These are 20 year contracts.

So it's not that we pay others to take the power directly, it is that whomever takes it, pays market rate but we have to pay the difference to those poor green energy providers.

Agreed 100%.....except that the conclusion is the same. WE pay taxes based on this. The consumer pays taxes to subsidize the electricity we send away or the electricity we keep. And this excess is not subject to carbon tax. So the gap will decrease. We have lots. We should use it. EVs do this.

 

[Soulcatcher668]

As @moarmoto said, we will always need an excess, we will always need a buffer.

EV's will not solve this problem, that is the issue I have when the "We pay for others to take our power" argument is made.

 

[moarmoto]

I never stated that we didn't need a surplus or a plan for the future. I too work in the industry, Nuclear to be specific.

There is an entire line on your hydro bill for what I am talking about. It's called the Global adjustment fee. This is the difference between what you pay, and what the government has agreed to pay.

I might've mixed up your comment and the one above.

In short, I want to emphasize that having additional capacity to generate doesn't lead to we paying someone to take electricity. It doesn't work that way. There's various factors involved in inter jurisdictional electricity trading plus actual physics involved in electrons flowing on wires.

Sent from my M2007J20CG using Tapatalk

 

[PrivatePilot]

Please enlighten me as to where I am wrong. I am always willing to change my views as new information comes up.

It wasn't actually you I was referring to (it as Peggy), but on the topic of paying to get rid of surplus energy, last I'd heard, it was still happening, just quietly.

The last reference I can find with a cursory search is 2016, but it has been happening for many years at that point, and likely continues to this day.

Ontario electricity customers have paid more than $6 billion to dump surplus, high-priced power: study

Ontario electricity customers have paid more than $6 billion to cover the cost of exporting the province’s energy surplus, according to a new study from the Consumer Policy Institute.

ep.probeinternational.org

Forum Sponsor