Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MikeTheActuary]

https://www.narcity.com/fr/les-voitures--essence-seront-officiellement-retires-de-la-vente-au-canada

(Article is in French, but Google Translate does a good job of rendering it in English.)

[Max Rockatansky]

 The gist I got was by 2035?

[cbeach40]

The gist I got was by 2035?

Yes

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/canada-electric-cars-2035-1.6085540
https://globalnews.ca/news/7990022/zero-emission-vehicles-canada/

[Duke87]

This is interesting because other countries that have previously made similar commitments are mostly fairly densely populated and have fairly mild climates. The charging limitations of electric vehicles become a lot more of an issue in rural/remote areas, and the impact of temperature on range becomes very apparent in places with frigid winters.

Am curious how they expect this to work out in January in Inuvik.

[vdeane]

Or even Newfoundland.  There are no superchargers there or even Electrify Canada.  It's a charging desert.

[dmuzika]

Or even Newfoundland.  There are no superchargers there or even Electrify Canada.  It's a charging desert.

What about anything outside a 200 km radius of any major city or 50 km from a major highway? Rural Canada is a large area even if the votes are concentrated in small pockets.

[ghYHZ]

Or even Newfoundland.  There are no superchargers there or even Electrify Canada.  It's a charging desert.

Right now there's charging stations along the Trans Canada in Newfoundland. It might be difficult to find a location in an outport village.....but locations are certainly only going to continue to grow. 

https://nlhydro.com/electricvehicles/

Here's the map for Canada with 6000 locations and it's being updated daily. By 2035....they'll be everywhere.
 
https://www.energyhub.org/ev-map-canada/

[jakeroot]

Apart from the post above me, I see a ton of people worried about 2021 infrastructure and technology, despite the goal being 2035.

If, 14 years from now, we haven't yet developed the necessary technology and infrastructure to end ICE sales, even in the most remote settings, it's only because we found an even better technology.

Perhaps hydrogen becomes a big deal in rural areas?

[Alps]

Apart from the post above me, I see a ton of people worried about 2021 infrastructure and technology, despite the goal being 2035.

If, 14 years from now, we haven't yet developed the necessary technology and infrastructure to end ICE sales, even in the most remote settings, it's only because we found an even better technology.

Perhaps hydrogen becomes a big deal in rural areas?

If it's not ready 14 years from now, the deadline will be pushed back.

[kalvado]

Apart from the post above me, I see a ton of people worried about 2021 infrastructure and technology, despite the goal being 2035.

If, 14 years from now, we haven't yet developed the necessary technology and infrastructure to end ICE sales, even in the most remote settings, it's only because we found an even better technology.

Perhaps hydrogen becomes a big deal in rural areas?

If it's not ready 14 years from now, the deadline will be pushed back.

Let's be ambitious, set deadline to 2025. After all, nobody cares about those things. Exhibit 1: national toll interoperability mandate.

[jakeroot]

Apart from the post above me, I see a ton of people worried about 2021 infrastructure and technology, despite the goal being 2035.

If, 14 years from now, we haven't yet developed the necessary technology and infrastructure to end ICE sales, even in the most remote settings, it's only because we found an even better technology.

Perhaps hydrogen becomes a big deal in rural areas?

If it's not ready 14 years from now, the deadline will be pushed back.

Let's be ambitious, set deadline to 2025. After all, nobody cares about those things. Exhibit 1: national toll interoperability mandate.

2035 is reasonably ambitious but there is enough time to reach it. 2025 is impossible. Too many automakers have already committed to continued ICE development beyond that date.

[kalvado]

Apart from the post above me, I see a ton of people worried about 2021 infrastructure and technology, despite the goal being 2035.

If, 14 years from now, we haven't yet developed the necessary technology and infrastructure to end ICE sales, even in the most remote settings, it's only because we found an even better technology.

Perhaps hydrogen becomes a big deal in rural areas?

If it's not ready 14 years from now, the deadline will be pushed back.

Let's be ambitious, set deadline to 2025. After all, nobody cares about those things. Exhibit 1: national toll interoperability mandate.

2035 is reasonably ambitious but there is enough time to reach it. 2025 is impossible. Too many automakers have already committed to continued ICE development beyond that date.

So, let me see if I got it right. Another meaningless number without underlying timeline of efforts, but we'll beyond terms of most representatives (or whatever they are called in Canada) casting votes?

[jakeroot]

Apart from the post above me, I see a ton of people worried about 2021 infrastructure and technology, despite the goal being 2035.

If, 14 years from now, we haven't yet developed the necessary technology and infrastructure to end ICE sales, even in the most remote settings, it's only because we found an even better technology.

Perhaps hydrogen becomes a big deal in rural areas?

If it's not ready 14 years from now, the deadline will be pushed back.

Let's be ambitious, set deadline to 2025. After all, nobody cares about those things. Exhibit 1: national toll interoperability mandate.

2035 is reasonably ambitious but there is enough time to reach it. 2025 is impossible. Too many automakers have already committed to continued ICE development beyond that date.

So, let me see if I got it right. Another meaningless number without underlying timeline of efforts, but we'll beyond terms of most representatives (or whatever they are called in Canada) casting votes?

MPs. But it's not meaningless, and actually corresponds to the goals of several other governments, such as California (and therefore many US states), the UK (and other European countries), and multiple automakers. Other articles I found indicate interim goals for both 2025 and 2030. 2035 is also five years sooner than the original goal of 2040.

I'm not sure I understand your qualm here. That they've set a goal without a very specific plan of action? That they are trying to influence the market? For the record, the goal was announced by Transport Canada; it was not a vote.

[kalvado]

Apart from the post above me, I see a ton of people worried about 2021 infrastructure and technology, despite the goal being 2035.

If, 14 years from now, we haven't yet developed the necessary technology and infrastructure to end ICE sales, even in the most remote settings, it's only because we found an even better technology.

Perhaps hydrogen becomes a big deal in rural areas?

If it's not ready 14 years from now, the deadline will be pushed back.

Let's be ambitious, set deadline to 2025. After all, nobody cares about those things. Exhibit 1: national toll interoperability mandate.

2035 is reasonably ambitious but there is enough time to reach it. 2025 is impossible. Too many automakers have already committed to continued ICE development beyond that date.

So, let me see if I got it right. Another meaningless number without underlying timeline of efforts, but we'll beyond terms of most representatives (or whatever they are called in Canada) casting votes?

MPs. But it's not meaningless, and actually corresponds to the goals of several other governments, such as California (and therefore many US states), the UK (and other European countries), and multiple automakers. Other articles I found indicate interim goals for both 2025 and 2030. 2035 is also five years sooner than the original goal of 2040.

I'm not sure I understand your qualm here. That they've set a goal without a very specific plan of action? That they are trying to influence the market? For the record, the goal was announced by Transport Canada; it was not a vote.

My main beef here is that I saw  Canada as one of very few places with the sane government. OK, welcome to the club, guys.

[jakeroot]

My main beef here is that I saw  Canada as one of very few places with the sane government. OK, welcome to the club, guys.

What would you rather they do? Proclaim themselves as the last vestige of the petrol or diesel automotive enthusiast? Or better put, are you just not into electric cars and would rather governments stay out of policy-making in a way that affects car markets?

[Max Rockatansky]

My main beef here is that I saw  Canada as one of very few places with the sane government. OK, welcome to the club, guys.

What would you rather they do? Proclaim themselves as the last vestige of the petrol or diesel automotive enthusiast? Or better put, are you just not into electric cars and would rather governments stay out of policy-making in a way that affects car markets?

The trouble I see was that there was already a naturally occurring shift towards automotive market moving towards EVs, it didn’t need to be legislated.  Pushing for an unnaturally drop dead date for internal combustion basically will net result in the development costs of EV vehicles and EV infrastructure being passed onto the consumer.  I’m not exactly thrilled (speaking for myself) of potentially have to pay a far higher price for a potentially less capable vehicle in 2035 (California mandates this year also). 

[kalvado]

My main beef here is that I saw  Canada as one of very few places with the sane government. OK, welcome to the club, guys.

What would you rather they do? Proclaim themselves as the last vestige of the petrol or diesel automotive enthusiast? Or better put, are you just not into electric cars and would rather governments stay out of policy-making in a way that affects car markets?

Grid development initiatives, including generation, transmission and storage requirements - with ample capacity to handle emergencies - would be a good start.

[jakeroot]

My main beef here is that I saw  Canada as one of very few places with the sane government. OK, welcome to the club, guys.

What would you rather they do? Proclaim themselves as the last vestige of the petrol or diesel automotive enthusiast? Or better put, are you just not into electric cars and would rather governments stay out of policy-making in a way that affects car markets?

Grid development initiatives, including generation, transmission and storage requirements - with ample capacity to handle emergencies - would be a good start.

That would be part of any good plan. Are you implying these things will not happen?

If anything, I would assume goals like those outlined by Canada would certainly guarantee investments like those.

The trouble I see was that there was already a naturally occurring shift towards automotive market moving towards EVs, it didn’t need to be legislated.  Pushing for an unnaturally drop dead date for internal combustion basically will net result in the development costs of EV vehicles and EV infrastructure being passed onto the consumer.  I’m not exactly thrilled (speaking for myself) of potentially have to pay a far higher price for a potentially less capable vehicle in 2035 (California mandates this year also). 

The push to electric would eventually happen anyway, yes. But given other climate goals, the push to all-electric has to be ensured by a certain date to meet other net-zero emission goals. It may prove pointless if the whole vehicle market adopts all-electric vehicles on their own prior to (in this case) 2035, but we can't really sit around and hope for that to happen.

[kalvado]

My main beef here is that I saw  Canada as one of very few places with the sane government. OK, welcome to the club, guys.

What would you rather they do? Proclaim themselves as the last vestige of the petrol or diesel automotive enthusiast? Or better put, are you just not into electric cars and would rather governments stay out of policy-making in a way that affects car markets?

Grid development initiatives, including generation, transmission and storage requirements - with ample capacity to handle emergencies - would be a good start.

That would be part of any good plan. Are you implying these things will not happen?

If anything, I would assume goals like those outlined by Canada would certainly guarantee investments like those.

We're talking about very large investments, and making sure funding is at least feasible what would make such a plan good. 
You assume plan is good upfront; I see TC making announcement with implied funding probably exceeding their budget and scope of work well outside their authority. Is that plan really good, or just feel good?

[jeffandnicole]

Apart from the post above me, I see a ton of people worried about 2021 infrastructure and technology, despite the goal being 2035.

If, 14 years from now, we haven't yet developed the necessary technology and infrastructure to end ICE sales, even in the most remote settings, it's only because we found an even better technology.

Perhaps hydrogen becomes a big deal in rural areas?

If it's not ready 14 years from now, the deadline will be pushed back.

Let's be ambitious, set deadline to 2025. After all, nobody cares about those things. Exhibit 1: national toll interoperability mandate.

Some of it depends on how well the public and the car manufacturers take to electric cars. If we get to 2030, and electric car sales are still less than 10%, you'll see influence on the feds to push back the mandate. But if we get to 2030 and electric car sales are around half of all new car sales, you're less likely to see an extension, or maybe gasoline vehicles sales can be permitted as a small part of overall sales, but with an additional fee/tax set on gasoline powered vehicles.

[jakeroot]

Some of it depends on how well the public and the car manufacturers take to electric cars. If we get to 2030, and electric car sales are still less than 10%, you'll see influence on the feds to push back the mandate. But if we get to 2030 and electric car sales are around half of all new car sales, you're less likely to see an extension, or maybe gasoline vehicles sales can be permitted as a small part of overall sales, but with an additional fee/tax set on gasoline powered vehicles.

Quite a few automakers have already announced the intent to phase-out ICE vehicles by 2030, pretty much everyone else by 2040. Only a few notable holdouts, like BMW. 2035 is likely an encouragement for automakers like Toyota and Honda to speed up ICE-phaseout (they have both indicated 2040).

We're talking about very large investments, and making sure funding is at least feasible what would make such a plan good. 
You assume plan is good upfront; I see TC making announcement with implied funding probably exceeding their budget and scope of work well outside their authority. Is that plan really good, or just feel good?

But we're talking about investments that would likely happen with or without government intervention. I get the impression, from you, that people will basically need to be given electric vehicles for there to be any chance of adoption. I don't think this is true at all, especially given the rate at which battery and charging technology are improving. Much like how petrol & diesel vehicles demanded the network of fuel stations and auto parts stores we have now, electric car adoption will naturally see us invest, privately and publicly, in the infrastructure to make that happen.

[kalvado]

Some of it depends on how well the public and the car manufacturers take to electric cars. If we get to 2030, and electric car sales are still less than 10%, you'll see influence on the feds to push back the mandate. But if we get to 2030 and electric car sales are around half of all new car sales, you're less likely to see an extension, or maybe gasoline vehicles sales can be permitted as a small part of overall sales, but with an additional fee/tax set on gasoline powered vehicles.

Quite a few automakers have already announced the intent to phase-out ICE vehicles by 2030, pretty much everyone else by 2040. Only a few notable holdouts, like BMW. 2035 is likely an encouragement for automakers like Toyota and Honda to speed up ICE-phaseout (they have both indicated 2040).

We're talking about very large investments, and making sure funding is at least feasible what would make such a plan good. 
You assume plan is good upfront; I see TC making announcement with implied funding probably exceeding their budget and scope of work well outside their authority. Is that plan really good, or just feel good?

But we're talking about investments that would likely happen with or without government intervention. I get the impression, from you, that people will basically need to be given electric vehicles for there to be any chance of adoption. I don't think this is true at all, especially given the rate at which battery and charging technology are improving. Much like how petrol & diesel vehicles demanded the network of fuel stations and auto parts stores we have now, electric car adoption will naturally see us invest, privately and publicly, in the infrastructure to make that happen.

Dream: 10s (Canada)/ 100s (USA) billions will be spent anyway.
Reality: we have no money to run a line across the road:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=24009.msg2569259#msg2569259

[jakeroot]

Dream: 10s (Canada)/ 100s (USA) billions will be spent anyway.
Reality: we have no money to run a line across the road:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=24009.msg2569259#msg2569259

It's not a dream. There will not be any ICE vehicles to buy as, by 2040, virtually all automakers will shift to electric. that'll get that line run real quick!

[kalvado]

Dream: 10s (Canada)/ 100s (USA) billions will be spent anyway.
Reality: we have no money to run a line across the road:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=24009.msg2569259#msg2569259

It's not a dream. There will not be any ICE vehicles to buy as, by 2040, virtually all automakers will shift to electric. that'll get that line run real quick!

And there will be all-nuclear flying cars by 1980 anyway.

[Max Rockatansky]

Dream: 10s (Canada)/ 100s (USA) billions will be spent anyway.
Reality: we have no money to run a line across the road:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=24009.msg2569259#msg2569259

It's not a dream. There will not be any ICE vehicles to buy as, by 2040, virtually all automakers will shift to electric. that'll get that line run real quick!

Has any automaker even attempted any solid concepts for electric freight vehicles (heavy duty trucks, trains and sea vessels) as of late?  Internal combustion in some form will probably always be around even when (and I argue “if”) the entire passenger market goes to full electric.