AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Canada's timeline to end sales of petrol-powered cars advanced to 2035  (Read 3091 times)

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13511
  • U/Wash | GIS & Urban Design

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Seattle and Tacoma, WA Arlington, VA | Vancouver, BC
  • Last Login: Today at 01:28:22 AM
    • Flickr

Personally, I think it is more likely we will see a battery technology that can be safely charged up from near empty in 5-10 minutes than one which is just as slow but can go 1000 miles with the same mass/volume as current batteries. Reason I say this is because the former already exists experimentally, it's just not commercially available (yet?).
Hasn't such been the case for 15-20 years now?  I wonder why none have made it to commercial availability.

My guess: there hasn't been a reason to. Until now.

Thanks Canada!
Logged
Check out my Flickr  |  Comments which I make here do not reflect positions of the University of Washington ("UW"), anyone employed by UW, nor any other students of UW. All comments are my own, and reflect my own ridiculous opinions.

kalvado

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4042
  • Location: upstate NY
  • Last Login: Today at 03:35:02 PM

Personally, I think it is more likely we will see a battery technology that can be safely charged up from near empty in 5-10 minutes than one which is just as slow but can go 1000 miles with the same mass/volume as current batteries. Reason I say this is because the former already exists experimentally, it's just not commercially available (yet?).
Hasn't such been the case for 15-20 years now?  I wonder why none have made it to commercial availability.
There was an IT joke - the fastest data transfer channel known to humanity is a truck loaded with hard drives.
Same here - the gas pipeline is the best power line. `
CHarging 1000 miles worth of porwe  in 5-10 minutes would require a small nuclear power plant, a couple of 1-foot diameter wires running to the battery, and a couple of cooling facilities - not too large, something similar to one coming with the power plant.

I am exaggerting a bit; 2-3 megawatt required for this operation is only about 1% of now-decomissioned unit 1 of Indian point power plant. So cooling tower can be just a size of a small home - hose connection may be an issue, though.
Logged

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12290
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 02:07:16 PM
    • New York State Roads

Personally, I think it is more likely we will see a battery technology that can be safely charged up from near empty in 5-10 minutes than one which is just as slow but can go 1000 miles with the same mass/volume as current batteries. Reason I say this is because the former already exists experimentally, it's just not commercially available (yet?).
Hasn't such been the case for 15-20 years now?  I wonder why none have made it to commercial availability.

My guess: there hasn't been a reason to. Until now.

Thanks Canada!
Except the original reason for researching better batteries in the first place was laptops.  Not cars.  Not even cell phones.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Duke87

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5674
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Stamford, CT
  • Last Login: Today at 02:05:20 AM

Personally, I think it is more likely we will see a battery technology that can be safely charged up from near empty in 5-10 minutes than one which is just as slow but can go 1000 miles with the same mass/volume as current batteries. Reason I say this is because the former already exists experimentally, it's just not commercially available (yet?).
Hasn't such been the case for 15-20 years now?  I wonder why none have made it to commercial availability.

Not sure exactly how long.

As for why not, well, having a functioning proof of concept in a lab doesn't mean you have something that works reliably and stably enough for real world usage. It also, crucially, doesn't mean it can be mass produced and sold at a viable price point. A lot of things that work great don't succeed commercially because they're too expensive for anyone to be able/willing to buy them.

Getting from the beginning of this process to the end can sometimes take a very long time. The proof of concept of using electricity to make a filament glow existed in the mid-17th century. It wasn't until over 100 years later that incandescent light bulbs were first sold commercially.

Which then comes back to why setting a date for everything to be all-electric is aspirational. Because who knows when the necessary technology to solve the charging problem will be rolling off assembly lines. Anything from within the next few years to we won't live to see it is possible.
Logged
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13511
  • U/Wash | GIS & Urban Design

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Seattle and Tacoma, WA Arlington, VA | Vancouver, BC
  • Last Login: Today at 01:28:22 AM
    • Flickr

Except the original reason for researching better batteries in the first place was laptops.  Not cars.  Not even cell phones.

Sure. Laptops were kind of the original foray into mobile electric needs. They laid the ground work for an infinite number of new opportunities for battery-powered devices. Like mobile phones, or cars. This is a good thing.

Which then comes back to why setting a date for everything to be all-electric is aspirational. Because who knows when the necessary technology to solve the charging problem will be rolling off assembly lines. Anything from within the next few years to we won't live to see it is possible.

So to circle back again: because we don't know exactly when the necessary technology will be available, we should not set any ICE "cutoff" date? I just feel like this isn't aspirational enough. Canada did not accompany their 2035 goal with a 500-page booklet detailing the exact process to get there. This goal is aspirational by design, and is meant to be modified, reinterpreted, and perhaps even pushed back as necessary.
Logged
Check out my Flickr  |  Comments which I make here do not reflect positions of the University of Washington ("UW"), anyone employed by UW, nor any other students of UW. All comments are my own, and reflect my own ridiculous opinions.

Duke87

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5674
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Stamford, CT
  • Last Login: Today at 02:05:20 AM

I just feel like this isn't aspirational enough.

Well that's exactly the crux of the matter, innit. Whether being aspirational is actually desirable or not.

I've been working in the energy industry for over a decade, and in my time I've dealt with way too many people who look at green energy deployment the way Fritzowl looks at freeway construction and need a nice icy dose of reality poured down their shirt.

So I'm not really a fan of "aspirational". I prefer to be honest and pragmatic about what is possible, what is realistic, what the challenges are, and what the opportunities are. It is, after all, my job to be honest and pragmatic about these things - the clients I work with would not appreciate it if I weren't.
Logged
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13511
  • U/Wash | GIS & Urban Design

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Seattle and Tacoma, WA Arlington, VA | Vancouver, BC
  • Last Login: Today at 01:28:22 AM
    • Flickr

So I'm not really a fan of "aspirational". I prefer to be honest and pragmatic about what is possible, what is realistic, what the challenges are, and what the opportunities are. It is, after all, my job to be honest and pragmatic about these things - the clients I work with would not appreciate it if I weren't.

Sure, and that's a good thing. Pragmatism is hugely important in any industry. But when it comes to setting electric vehicle adoption goals, I don't think you have to be pragmatic. It's well understood that this is a rapidly changing industry, and there is a lot of room for aspiration given how quickly things are changing. Transport Canada would be foolish to set a goal of 2025 given existing technological barriers, but 2035 is still just far enough away that they can take pragmatic steps in the mean time to try and reach that goal, all along crossing their fingers that the necessary technology to support such a transition becomes both widely available and affordable. If that never happens, clearly they'll have to adjust the goal, but good things will likely still come from it.

It's really no different than Vision Zero (love it or hate it): it's clearly aspirational, and you could argue to the end of the earth whether such an aspirational goal is actually viable. But it has resulted in some pretty significant improvements around the world that may not necessarily have occurred without such aspirational policy-making. 1% fewer road deaths per year may be more pragmatic, but the Vision Zero movement, while less achievable than the more pragmatic goal, is doing good things for society in terms of design, investments, and policy. This is how I look at the 2035 goal: maybe not achievable given technology as we currently understand it, but there is certainly value in aspirational goals when it comes to spurring policy and technology to get us there. In my opinion, we will be better off with that 2035 goal, even if we don't hit it.
Logged
Check out my Flickr  |  Comments which I make here do not reflect positions of the University of Washington ("UW"), anyone employed by UW, nor any other students of UW. All comments are my own, and reflect my own ridiculous opinions.

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12290
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 02:07:16 PM
    • New York State Roads

Except the original reason for researching better batteries in the first place was laptops.  Not cars.  Not even cell phones.

Sure. Laptops were kind of the original foray into mobile electric needs. They laid the ground work for an infinite number of new opportunities for battery-powered devices. Like mobile phones, or cars. This is a good thing.
Well, you guessed that there wasn't a reason to improve battery technology.  That hasn't been the case.  Of course, that point about economic viability is an interesting one.  I wonder if any old concepts that were deemed "not viable" are being dusted off as a result... I imagine people would be willing to pay more for a better car battery than they would for a better phone or laptop battery.

So I'm not really a fan of "aspirational". I prefer to be honest and pragmatic about what is possible, what is realistic, what the challenges are, and what the opportunities are. It is, after all, my job to be honest and pragmatic about these things - the clients I work with would not appreciate it if I weren't.

Sure, and that's a good thing. Pragmatism is hugely important in any industry. But when it comes to setting electric vehicle adoption goals, I don't think you have to be pragmatic. It's well understood that this is a rapidly changing industry, and there is a lot of room for aspiration given how quickly things are changing. Transport Canada would be foolish to set a goal of 2025 given existing technological barriers, but 2035 is still just far enough away that they can take pragmatic steps in the mean time to try and reach that goal, all along crossing their fingers that the necessary technology to support such a transition becomes both widely available and affordable. If that never happens, clearly they'll have to adjust the goal, but good things will likely still come from it.

It's really no different than Vision Zero (love it or hate it): it's clearly aspirational, and you could argue to the end of the earth whether such an aspirational goal is actually viable. But it has resulted in some pretty significant improvements around the world that may not necessarily have occurred without such aspirational policy-making. 1% fewer road deaths per year may be more pragmatic, but the Vision Zero movement, while less achievable than the more pragmatic goal, is doing good things for society in terms of design, investments, and policy. This is how I look at the 2035 goal: maybe not achievable given technology as we currently understand it, but there is certainly value in aspirational goals when it comes to spurring policy and technology to get us there. In my opinion, we will be better off with that 2035 goal, even if we don't hit it.
Given how dysfunctional government tends to be, setting policies that would need to be changed if key things needed for them don't occur is not without risk.  Just look at the debacle of Act 44 in PA leading to sky-high Turnpike tolls.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13511
  • U/Wash | GIS & Urban Design

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Seattle and Tacoma, WA Arlington, VA | Vancouver, BC
  • Last Login: Today at 01:28:22 AM
    • Flickr

News out of Japan yesterday:

https://insideevs.com/news/519703/ev-aircon-refrigerant-boosts-range/

Daikin (of Osaka) announced a new refrigerant capable of boiling at -40 C (normally this occurs at -25 to -30 C). This massively increases the potential range for EVs as the power required to operate the air conditioner system is now much lower.

SAE International is currently testing the product to ensure safe operation. 2025 is the expected market entry year.
Logged
Check out my Flickr  |  Comments which I make here do not reflect positions of the University of Washington ("UW"), anyone employed by UW, nor any other students of UW. All comments are my own, and reflect my own ridiculous opinions.

kalvado

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4042
  • Location: upstate NY
  • Last Login: Today at 03:35:02 PM

News out of Japan yesterday:

https://insideevs.com/news/519703/ev-aircon-refrigerant-boosts-range/

Daikin (of Osaka) announced a new refrigerant capable of boiling at -40 C (normally this occurs at -25 to -30 C). This massively increases the potential range for EVs as the power required to operate the air conditioner system is now much lower.

SAE International is currently testing the product to ensure safe operation. 2025 is the expected market entry year.
Freon 32. And who needs that ozone layer anyway??
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13511
  • U/Wash | GIS & Urban Design

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Seattle and Tacoma, WA Arlington, VA | Vancouver, BC
  • Last Login: Today at 01:28:22 AM
    • Flickr

Freon 32. And who needs that ozone layer anyway??

Not sure what you mean.
Logged
Check out my Flickr  |  Comments which I make here do not reflect positions of the University of Washington ("UW"), anyone employed by UW, nor any other students of UW. All comments are my own, and reflect my own ridiculous opinions.

kalvado

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4042
  • Location: upstate NY
  • Last Login: Today at 03:35:02 PM

Freon 32. And who needs that ozone layer anyway??

Not sure what you mean.
"New" refrigerant is known for many years, and it belongs to the group of chemicals banned during ozone hole crusade.
Logged

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14285
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 38
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 01:04:57 AM
    • Alps' Roads

News out of Japan yesterday:

https://insideevs.com/news/519703/ev-aircon-refrigerant-boosts-range/

Daikin (of Osaka) announced a new refrigerant capable of boiling at -40 C (normally this occurs at -25 to -30 C). This massively increases the potential range for EVs as the power required to operate the air conditioner system is now much lower.

SAE International is currently testing the product to ensure safe operation. 2025 is the expected market entry year.
-massively increases if you don't use AC...

kalvado

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4042
  • Location: upstate NY
  • Last Login: Today at 03:35:02 PM

News out of Japan yesterday:

https://insideevs.com/news/519703/ev-aircon-refrigerant-boosts-range/

Daikin (of Osaka) announced a new refrigerant capable of boiling at -40 C (normally this occurs at -25 to -30 C). This massively increases the potential range for EVs as the power required to operate the air conditioner system is now much lower.

SAE International is currently testing the product to ensure safe operation. 2025 is the expected market entry year.
-massively increases if you don't use AC...
Keyword missing here is "heat pump".
Using heat pump supplied from battery does make sense. What those folks are advertising is ability to 8ncrease heat pump operation range.
As far as I remember, typical dual function household units cannot go below water freezing temperature. One if reasons, besides refrigerant properties, would be ice formation in the radiator. Unlike liquid water, ice cannot just drip down.
There are some other cans of worms with low temperature heat pumps, but publishing fake news is addictive...
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13511
  • U/Wash | GIS & Urban Design

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Seattle and Tacoma, WA Arlington, VA | Vancouver, BC
  • Last Login: Today at 01:28:22 AM
    • Flickr

As far as I remember, typical dual function household units cannot go below water freezing temperature. One if reasons, besides refrigerant properties, would be ice formation in the radiator. Unlike liquid water, ice cannot just drip down.

Could you not reverse the refrigerant process to melt the ice formation? If it's radically below freezing, I could see this becoming very inefficient, but I think it's still possible.
Logged
Check out my Flickr  |  Comments which I make here do not reflect positions of the University of Washington ("UW"), anyone employed by UW, nor any other students of UW. All comments are my own, and reflect my own ridiculous opinions.

kalvado

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4042
  • Location: upstate NY
  • Last Login: Today at 03:35:02 PM

As far as I remember, typical dual function household units cannot go below water freezing temperature. One if reasons, besides refrigerant properties, would be ice formation in the radiator. Unlike liquid water, ice cannot just drip down.

Could you not reverse the refrigerant process to melt the ice formation? If it's radically below freezing, I could see this becoming very inefficient, but I think it's still possible.
Can you run an AC in a car when outside temperature is below 0? Sure, most countries would consider it legal. Make sure driver has an extra layer of warm coat available.

You can always solve issues by over engineering, but things could get complex, expensive and inefficient.
Heat pumps take advantage of high transfer efficiency over small temperature differences. When temperature differences are not so small, benefits of heat pump may be more difficult to actually implement, especially for the places like Winnipeg (this is Canadian forum, right?) where hot days in summer require real AC, and cold winters present challenges due to freezing coolant and oil becoming too viscous to start ICE. I really wonder what the gas formulation is for those conditions.
I can imagine quite a few tricks to be implemented, but things like twiceh-a-year major system service for reconfiguration may be too much to ask from an average driver.
Logged

Duke87

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5674
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Stamford, CT
  • Last Login: Today at 02:05:20 AM

As far as I remember, typical dual function household units cannot go below water freezing temperature. One if reasons, besides refrigerant properties, would be ice formation in the radiator. Unlike liquid water, ice cannot just drip down.

Ice formation won't occur unless the coils get below the dew point of the surrounding air. Fortunately in most climates it tends not to be that humid when it's cold.

When it comes to functional limitations of heat pumps, in practice there are two of them:

1) As temperatures outside drop, the rate of heat loss through the walls of your building (or car) increases and the maximum rate at which a heat pump can pump inside decreases. So even once you factor in the effects of things like sunlight and people's body heat, a point will come where the heat pump can meet some but not all of the demand and you need to turn to another heat source (typically electric resistive heaters in the air handler) to pick up the slack.

2) As temperatures outside drop, the efficiency of a heat pump drops. There comes a point where the ratio of heat energy moved to energy consumed (this is known as a Coefficient of Performance, or COP) drops below 1. Once this happens, even if the heat pump is still capable of meeting the demand for heat, you are better off shutting it off and switching over to resistive heat.

So it becomes a question of at what point do you hit one of these two limitations. With older heat pumps it often was around freezing, but there are newer heat pumps that are perfectly capable of running in heat pump mode lower than that. Indeed, we have a heat pump at our home and the resistive heater doesn't start to kick in and help until the temperature drops below about 20 outside.

Could you not reverse the refrigerant process to melt the ice formation? If it's radically below freezing, I could see this becoming very inefficient, but I think it's still possible.

That's counterproductive since you'd be pulling heat from inside to do this. This problem is more effectively resolved with resistive heating elements on the coils. That's how your freezer does it.
Logged
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.