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.)
The gist I got was by 2035?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 30, 2021, 01:24:11 PM
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/
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.
Or even Newfoundland. There are no superchargers there or even Electrify Canada. It's a charging desert.
Quote from: vdeane on June 30, 2021, 09:50:29 PM
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.
Quote from: vdeane on June 30, 2021, 09:50:29 PM
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/
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?
Quote from: jakeroot on July 01, 2021, 01:54:41 PM
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.
Quote from: Alps on July 03, 2021, 12:39:07 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 01, 2021, 01:54:41 PM
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.
Quote from: kalvado on July 03, 2021, 12:42:12 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 03, 2021, 12:39:07 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 01, 2021, 01:54:41 PM
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.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 03, 2021, 02:24:54 PM
Quote from: kalvado on July 03, 2021, 12:42:12 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 03, 2021, 12:39:07 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 01, 2021, 01:54:41 PM
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?
Quote from: kalvado on July 03, 2021, 03:54:05 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 03, 2021, 02:24:54 PM
Quote from: kalvado on July 03, 2021, 12:42:12 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 03, 2021, 12:39:07 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 01, 2021, 01:54:41 PM
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.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 03, 2021, 04:17:23 PM
Quote from: kalvado on July 03, 2021, 03:54:05 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 03, 2021, 02:24:54 PM
Quote from: kalvado on July 03, 2021, 12:42:12 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 03, 2021, 12:39:07 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 01, 2021, 01:54:41 PM
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.
Quote from: kalvado on July 03, 2021, 05:07:44 PM
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?
Quote from: jakeroot on July 03, 2021, 05:14:36 PM
Quote from: kalvado on July 03, 2021, 05:07:44 PM
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).
Quote from: jakeroot on July 03, 2021, 05:14:36 PM
Quote from: kalvado on July 03, 2021, 05:07:44 PM
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.
Quote from: kalvado on July 03, 2021, 05:54:55 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 03, 2021, 05:14:36 PM
Quote from: kalvado on July 03, 2021, 05:07:44 PM
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.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 03, 2021, 05:19:16 PM
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.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 03, 2021, 06:44:30 PM
Quote from: kalvado on July 03, 2021, 05:54:55 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 03, 2021, 05:14:36 PM
Quote from: kalvado on July 03, 2021, 05:07:44 PM
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?
Quote from: kalvado on July 03, 2021, 12:42:12 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 03, 2021, 12:39:07 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 01, 2021, 01:54:41 PM
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.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 04, 2021, 10:59:27 AM
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).
Quote from: kalvado on July 03, 2021, 08:07:00 PM
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.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 04, 2021, 12:24:42 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 04, 2021, 10:59:27 AM
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).
Quote from: kalvado on July 03, 2021, 08:07:00 PM
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
Quote from: kalvado on July 04, 2021, 01:19:53 PM
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!
Quote from: jakeroot on July 04, 2021, 01:45:50 PM
Quote from: kalvado on July 04, 2021, 01:19:53 PM
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.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 04, 2021, 01:45:50 PM
Quote from: kalvado on July 04, 2021, 01:19:53 PM
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.
Quote from: kalvado on July 04, 2021, 01:57:52 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 04, 2021, 01:45:50 PM
Quote from: kalvado on July 04, 2021, 01:19:53 PM
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.
Barely any tangible evidence of that ever happening. The end of ICE, on the other hand, is very real.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 04, 2021, 02:11:10 PM
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.
Have you driven a diesel semi? I haven't, but my grandfather made a living of it. Nothing like shifting through 14 gears only to get cut-up by a dozen cars. Internal combustion has proved highly valuable for freight but it is not the last word. To answer your question: absolutely. There is a shift towards electric trucks throughout the industry, from school buses to delivery vehicles (my local district already has electric school buses). Volvo, Rivian, Tesla, BYD, and Daimler (among
many others) have already begun investing heavily into electric semis. Electric trains are very much a thing. Hard to believe you even mentioned that. And while ships maybe aren't the next big electric revolution,
yes it is a thing (https://insideevs.com/news/465115/china-world-largest-electric-cruise-ship/).
To clarify my previous post, I'm talking about long haul freight and not the in town services that are common in urban areas (such as the electric bus lines in Seattle and obvious urban use of electrified rail). It's hard to envision a full fleet of long haul trucks or the Union Pacific (as examples) being anywhere near term for something like mass electrification. Neat to see a concept for commercial shipping, that's a hugely under estimated source of internal combustion related pollution.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 04, 2021, 02:40:54 PM
To clarify my previous post, I'm talking about long haul freight and not the in town services that are common in urban areas (such as the electric bus lines in Seattle and obvious urban use of electrified rail). It's hard to envision a full fleet of long haul trucks or the Union Pacific (as examples) being anywhere near term for something like mass electrification. Neat to see a concept for commercial shipping, that's a hugely under estimated source of internal combustion related pollution.
I know you meant long-haul. Electric long-haul trains are normal in many countries, both for passenger and freight services. Having everything powered by diesel is pretty unique to North America. Of course, it wasn't always this way: electric lines were common in the early 20th century.
This old bridge (https://goo.gl/maps/CVzV4cmujdNVmjfY7) over the Columbia in Beverly, WA still has the early-1900s electric catenary supports installed by Northern Pacific. Electric power only fell out of favor as the private railway organizations were not interested in maintaining the electric infrastructure, not because it wasn't a good technology. In the future, I suspect we may begin to experiment with diesel-electric trainsets that can run on overhead catenary systems within urban areas, and diesel in rural areas, especially since smog and pollution is more of a serious issue in urbanized areas.
Electric long-haul trucks are indeed a thing, but
current trucks are only possess around 250 miles of range (the Tesla Semi is around 400 to 500 but it's not in production). Long term investment could at least get us to the point where trucks align with the drivers, charging up whenever required breaks occur. In a more ideal world, the trucks will last longer than the driver, and they will simply draft each other in a driverless convoy. But that's another technology.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 03, 2021, 05:14:36 PM
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?
I think the main issue here is that governments are setting goals on this stuff that are aspirational as opposed to realistic. The amount of infrastructure that needs to be built out to support ubiquity of EVs makes the interstate system look tiny, and that took 30 years to build to substantial completion.
It is certainly the right thing to be doing to be investing in that infrastructure now, and doing some other things to encourage adoption of EVs. But it is way too early to be setting an end date, practically speaking. Saying "no more new gasoline-powered cars come 2035" is a political play.
And this understandably stirs the pot because guess what: come 2035, there are going to be people who, for one reason or another, are not prepared to go electric. Some of them may just be stubborn curmudgeons, but others will have legitimate reasons why a gasoline-powered vehicle better suits their needs. And there are also going to be people who would/could go electric except that the infrastructure for them to do so is still not in place where they need it to be in place.
This means one of two things logically must happen. Either the deadline for gasoline phaseout will be pushed back, in which case one might ask why they bothered making a deadline in the first place if they weren't going to stick to it, or the official line will be "you had 14 years to prepare, if you aren't ready, that's on you, you deal with the consequences. Buy a used car if you still want a gasoline-powered one". Neither of these outcomes is ideal, though the latter one less so.
So, what I at least would like is for policymakers to state an intent to phase out the sale of gasoline-powered cars "when the infrastructure is in place to support all cars being electric and when technology allows for them to replace all use cases for gasoline without substantial loss of function". This commits to making the transition without making any promises that cannot be kept, or otherwise creating any fears that we might be dealing with the consequences of being forced to change before we're actually ready to.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 04, 2021, 12:24:42 PM
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).
Do want to note that these stated intents are not set in stone. A decade ago, major automakers had stated intent to start eliminating AM/FM radios from cars in the next few years in favor of just offering integration with streaming services. Then that didn't happen.
Right now automakers are saying these things for political reasons, just like governments are. They can and will shift course if they determine it makes business sense to do so.
Quote from: Duke87 on July 08, 2021, 09:59:03 PM
It is certainly the right thing to be doing to be investing in that infrastructure now, and doing some other things to encourage adoption of EVs. But it is way too early to be setting an end date, practically speaking. Saying "no more new gasoline-powered cars come 2035" is a political play.
Of course it's political play. What else would it be? An actual, hard "2035" is incredibly difficult to be certain of. There are way too many factors to really, truly know when we can actually end combustion engine sales.
The point of "2035" is nothing more than Canada settling in with numerous other organizations, countries, and states that have
all announced similar goals. Not setting a goal does not get anyone closer to ending combustion engine sales, because government policies do play a big role in how we, as a society, progress into the future. And while setting a goal doesn't mean they will reach a goal, it will help them guide their investment policies for the next 10-20 years, to ensure that goal can be met. That is, like, the definition of politics.
Quote from: Duke87 on July 08, 2021, 10:51:33 PM
Right now automakers are saying these things for political reasons, just like governments are. They can and will shift course if they determine it makes business sense to do so.
Again, that's very obvious. That's what any private enterprise should do: make sound business choices. But what shift is going to occur in the next 15 years that would, say, drive VW to abandon all of its EV infrastructure? What shift is going to force Volvo to begin investing in combustion engines? And importantly, what shift occurs in battery and charging technology that drives us
away from an electric drivetrain? While there are many technical barriers that need to be overcome, I highly doubt we are going to walk away from EVs.
Just for the record, I've always found government policy to be at least as important in the auto market as the preferences of the general public. Audi can sell matrix LED headlamps, but they're only half-baked since policy dictates very specific controls. But, it's not like Audi can waltz into NHTSA's office, slap down some sales numbers, and force their hand. NHTSA has the upper hand, and so does the government. It
can set a hard policy if it wants, and we're beginning to see that now. Even in China.
edit: fixed second-to-last paragraph final sentence, as it did not make sense.
Quote from: Duke87 on July 08, 2021, 10:51:33 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 04, 2021, 12:24:42 PM
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).
Do want to note that these stated intents are not set in stone. A decade ago, major automakers had stated intent to start eliminating AM/FM radios from cars in the next few years in favor of just offering integration with streaming services. Then that didn't happen.
Right now automakers are saying these things for political reasons, just like governments are. They can and will shift course if they determine it makes business sense to do so.
I tried looking up the story about the AM/FM radio thing and it looks like it was a throwaway line from a GM exec talking about other companies, and he was wrong. AM has been removed in electric cars because they're too cheap/lazy to shield things to prevent interference. Tesla made an "upgrade" that removed AM/FM/XM, only to find a way to charge more to put FM/XM back Tesla finds new and creative ways to assail their customers.
Based on that, there was never a sincere effort in 2013 to remove AM/FM radios from most cars by the end of the 2010's.
The purpose of science is to discover what IS true. Not to invent whatever some politician or whatever WISHES was.
It is POSSIBLE that ICE cars will be replaceable in 2035. It is also possible that they will never be. Childlike faith that something that has, in the history of mankind, not yet been invented will be just because we wish it to be so is foolish.
As is making public policy based on things that do not yet exist.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 08, 2021, 11:31:34 PM
Of course it's political play. What else would it be?
....
NHTSA has the upper hand, and so does the government. It can set a hard policy if it wants.
It is probably nice to see glass half full. But the other way of putting it is "idiots with the sledgehammer"
Quote from: SP Cook on July 09, 2021, 10:31:34 AM
The purpose of science is to discover what IS true. Not to invent whatever some politician or whatever WISHES was.
It is POSSIBLE that ICE cars will be replaceable in 2035. It is also possible that they will never be. Childlike faith that something that has, in the history of mankind, not yet been invented will be just because we wish it to be so is foolish.
As is making public policy based on things that do not yet exist.
Electric cars don't exist yet?
Quote from: jakeroot on July 08, 2021, 11:31:34 PM
But what shift is going to occur in the next 15 years that would, say, drive VW to abandon all of its EV infrastructure? What shift is going to force Volvo to begin investing in combustion engines? And importantly, what shift occurs in battery and charging technology that drives us away from an electric drivetrain? While there are many technical barriers that need to be overcome, I highly doubt we are going to walk away from EVs.
There are tons of issues people don't quite realize.
A random one - but it can become a show-stopper: peak copper.
We're running into general situation, where natural resources are becoming a limitation. This covers many things - oil is a well known one; iron (steel) is less so. What I hear is that today's iron supply comes from ores which were not even considered ores 100 years ago.
Electric cars means significant growth of copper consumption - while people have to back away from household copper use, such as drinking water pipes and house wiring - due to increased cost.
What would happen when all cars are electric, and automotive copper demand increases 5-10x compared to today (that is before use in charging stations is considered?)
right now there is about 90 kg of copper per electric car, 17M cars sold in US - so projected demand is 1.5 million metric tons. Total US consumption in 2019 was 1.8 million metric tons.
Is that a show-stopper? Well, we'll see. Copper price took off about 20 years ago, so far growth is is 30x over 20 years. When we needed to do some plumbing at work 20 years ago, my boss went to Home Depot and bought literally a bag of fittings - and didn't bother to submit a reimbursement for less than $20. Today it can be easily $10 per single piece.
Would electric vehicles help to bring it further up? Hell, yes.
Of course, Aluminum wiring in motors is an option. A couple hundred billion investment in technology, anyone?
For those of you who have, or who have experienced travel in, an EV, something I'm curious about as to Canada (and colder parts of the USA like North Dakota) is how running the heater affects range. Certainly we know AC usage has a significant effect on EV range. I assume running the heater must have some effect but that it's likely less of an impact than the AC has, consistent with ICE-powered vehicles.
The 2035 thing is just a timeline to make certain voters happy. When 2030 comes along they will simply delay it another 10 years to 2040. Plus most people in office (Canada or US) will be long gone by 2035. Throwing out a date like that just means that they won't be responsible for it.
My local university has been 10 years away from building a new football stadium for at least 15 years now. Same deal. The AD and President that promised that 15 years ago are long gone.
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 09, 2021, 11:04:23 AM
For those of you who have, or who have experienced travel in, an EV, something I'm curious about as to Canada (and colder parts of the USA like North Dakota) is how running the heater affects range. Certainly we know AC usage has a significant effect on EV range. I assume running the heater must have some effect but that it's likely less of an impact than the AC has, consistent with ICE-powered vehicles.
I suspect it will be worse than heat.
ICE has a pretty low efficiency, so recycling unused heat for the cabin is a no-brainer. EV have less losses. Battery cooling loop in Tesla is still Glycol, so recycling that for the cabin is very doable. How would that work in Winnipeg or Edmonton - I am not sure.
Heating battery in parked car may be needed. Oil heaters pretty much in every car is one thing which surprised me in Winnipeg, though.
Good point about reusing the heat in an ICE. I obviously didn't think about that.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 09, 2021, 10:56:52 AM
Electric cars don't exist yet?
Electric cars that can meet every transportation need in all of Canada in terms of range, power, durability, and affordability (absent subsidy) do not. Nor does the infrastructure to support same. Nor the electrical generation capacity to supply same.
They might be possible. Might not. Science will answer that question.
Until then, best to make public policy based on what we know IS, not what we WISH was.
Quote from: Duke87 on July 08, 2021, 09:59:03 PM
It is certainly the right thing to be doing to be investing in that infrastructure now, and doing some other things to encourage adoption of EVs.
Only if what ends up replacing IC engine automobiles is
actually better for the environment. Not everyone agrees that EVs are a net benefit to the environment when compared to IC, especially at such large scales.
Quote from: Duke87 on July 08, 2021, 09:59:03 PM
... come 2035, there are going to be people who, for one reason or another, are not prepared to go electric. Some of them may just be stubborn curmudgeons, but others will have legitimate reasons why a gasoline-powered vehicle better suits their needs. And there are also going to be people who would/could go electric except that the infrastructure for them to do so is still not in place where they need it to be in place.
This means one of two things logically must happen. Either the deadline for gasoline phaseout will be pushed back, in which case one might ask why they bothered making a deadline in the first place if they weren't going to stick to it, or the official line will be "you had 14 years to prepare, if you aren't ready, that's on you, you deal with the consequences. Buy a used car if you still want a gasoline-powered one". Neither of these outcomes is ideal, though the latter one less so.
Another possibility would be to make the target easier to hit. Instead of "no IC production", instead aim for something like "at least 80% of each auto maker's production to be non-IC". That would still leave room for a couple of IC models from each auto maker, but would leave the rest of the line EV or whatever else.
Another possibility would be to allow exceptions for specific types of individual needs: farmers and ranchers could be exempt, people living in areas of low enough population density could be exempt, etc. Kind of like how, in Mexico, citizens don't have the right to bear arms but can apply for an exception (security officers, high-profile politicians, those in very rural areas, et al)–except for operating IC vehicles rather than for bearing arms. Some of those would continue to fill up from private gas tanks (farmers and ranchers), while others could continue to be served by a much-less-populated gas station network.
I'm not saying I think either of those options
should happen. Just that there are other possibilities to consider.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 09, 2021, 10:56:52 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on July 09, 2021, 10:31:34 AM
The purpose of science is to discover what IS true. Not to invent whatever some politician or whatever WISHES was.
It is POSSIBLE that ICE cars will be replaceable in 2035. It is also possible that they will never be. Childlike faith that something that has, in the history of mankind, not yet been invented will be just because we wish it to be so is foolish.
As is making public policy based on things that do not yet exist.
Electric cars don't exist yet?
They exist, but they're not even remotely practical for everyone. If you have home-charging and only need a daily driver for the local area, they're great - better than ICE cars, in fact. If you regularly drive long distances (particularly roadgeek levels of distance), how well they work depends on how flexible you are regarding where, how often, and how long you stop. If you're preferred lunch place isn't near the charger, well then you have to choose - do you spend extra time eating lunch, or do you pick the place that's near the charger, even if it's unappealing, so that you can get back on the road when you're done charging? If you have a non-Tesla, virtually all the fast chargers are Electrify America stations at WalMarts, so that's a bigger issue than one would think. Even many superchargers are a further distance from the interstate than one would need to go to get gas.
If you don't have home charging, especially if you also don't have charging at work, they're not really practical.
Now this is (mostly) not a tech problem so much as an infrastructure one, but that will still be a MASSIVE investment to make EVs as practical as ICE cars for the vast majority of use cases. And some cases never will be. Someone who drives a company car to sites across a geographic area and eats in the car to get more done in the day (as my cousin does - he works as a contractor supervisor for a company that landscapes parking lots and is on the road 60 hours a week) is going to find an EV less convenient no matter what.
This thread definitely took off again!
Quote from: vdeane on July 09, 2021, 01:41:30 PM
Now this is (mostly) not a tech problem so much as an infrastructure one, but that will still be a MASSIVE investment to make EVs as practical as ICE cars for the vast majority of use cases. And some cases never will be. Someone who drives a company car to sites across a geographic area and eats in the car to get more done in the day (as my cousin does - he works as a contractor supervisor for a company that landscapes parking lots and is on the road 60 hours a week) is going to find an EV less convenient no matter what.
It could be an infrastructure problem, but it could also be a technology problem.
For example: if chargers were everywhere right now, across every shopping center parking lot, gas station, rest area, etc, electric cars would be pretty practical even in their current state. You wouldn't have to wait for an opening, and assuming you had access to a high-speed charger, you could get back on the road pretty quickly (in the off-chance you're actually going a really long distance).
But consider this (as it relates to tech): while we build out our charging infrastructure, we also continue to innovate in battery technology. What if electric cars could go 1000 miles between charges? You might say that such a distance would require a huge battery; that's true right now, but who's to say that remains the case? Maybe future software and vehicle design is more efficient, allowing us to drive further with the same or even smaller battery.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 09, 2021, 05:47:46 PM
This thread definitely took off again!
Quote from: vdeane on July 09, 2021, 01:41:30 PM
Now this is (mostly) not a tech problem so much as an infrastructure one, but that will still be a MASSIVE investment to make EVs as practical as ICE cars for the vast majority of use cases. And some cases never will be. Someone who drives a company car to sites across a geographic area and eats in the car to get more done in the day (as my cousin does - he works as a contractor supervisor for a company that landscapes parking lots and is on the road 60 hours a week) is going to find an EV less convenient no matter what.
It could be an infrastructure problem, but it could also be a technology problem.
For example: if chargers were everywhere right now, across every shopping center parking lot, gas station, rest area, etc, electric cars would be pretty practical even in their current state. You wouldn't have to wait for an opening, and assuming you had access to a high-speed charger, you could get back on the road pretty quickly (in the off-chance you're actually going a really long distance).
But consider this (as it relates to tech): while we build out our charging infrastructure, we also continue to innovate in battery technology. What if electric cars could go 1000 miles between charges? You might say that such a distance would require a huge battery; that's true right now, but who's to say that remains the case? Maybe future software and vehicle design is more efficient, allowing us to drive further with the same or even smaller battery.
Sometimes I really envy those who don't know physics, not even at high school level. World must be really full of miracles and wonders to such lucky folks!
Quote from: kalvado on July 09, 2021, 06:10:47 PM
Sometimes I really envy those who don't know physics, not even at high school level. World must be really full of miracles and wonders to such lucky folks!
https://insideevs.com/news/515413/tesla-models-battery-pack-reduction/
Yeah, I don't know physics. Just relaying what I've been seeing, which is increased efficiency.
Quote from: kalvado on July 09, 2021, 11:13:36 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 09, 2021, 11:04:23 AM
For those of you who have, or who have experienced travel in, an EV, something I'm curious about as to Canada (and colder parts of the USA like North Dakota) is how running the heater affects range. Certainly we know AC usage has a significant effect on EV range. I assume running the heater must have some effect but that it's likely less of an impact than the AC has, consistent with ICE-powered vehicles.
I suspect it will be worse than heat.
It definitely will be. As a general rule of thumb, heating consumes more energy than air conditioning for a very simple basic reason: temperature difference. To be comfortable, the average human will want it to be somewhere in the range of 70 degrees, give or take a few. For air conditioning, even if it's 110 degrees outside (it usually is not), that's a 40 degree difference in temperature you're fighting against. But now for heating, if it's a roughly equally extreme -30 degrees outside, you're fighting against a 100 degree temperature difference! Since the rate of heat flow through the wall of the car is faster the greater the difference in temperature is (basic thermodynamics), even maintaining a larger temperature differential once you have achieved it will consume more energy.
Now, there are other confounding factors here. For one, as we all know, the sun heats up cars, whose surface area has a lot of glass. This hurts you when you're trying to cool the car but helps you when you're trying to heat it (though it doesn't help you at night, when it will be the coldest).
On the other hand, air conditioning works by pumping heat energy out of the car, and it can reasonably be expected to move 3 or more units of heat for every unit of energy it consumes. While it is possible (to a point) to reverse this process for heating, cars generally do not come built with two-way heat pumps and your car will be relying on electric resistance for heat, which only produces 1 unit of heat for every unit of energy it consumes (any more would violate the laws of physics). So the heater, in addition to needing to provide more output, is considerably less efficient at doing so.
Another thing to consider here regarding range is that batteries themselves are temperature sensitive. When it is really cold outside you will get less range even if you don't run the heat, simply because cold temperatures lower the electric resistance in the battery and cause it to lose energy faster.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 09, 2021, 06:49:05 PM
Quote from: kalvado on July 09, 2021, 06:10:47 PM
Sometimes I really envy those who don't know physics, not even at high school level. World must be really full of miracles and wonders to such lucky folks!
https://insideevs.com/news/515413/tesla-models-battery-pack-reduction/
Yeah, I don't know physics. Just relaying what I've been seeing, which is increased efficiency.
One thing I will say: Lithium Ion batteries as we know them are not the end of the road as far as battery technology is concerned. At some point, something else will become commercially available that is objectively better and Lithium batteries will become as quaint as Nickel-Cadmium batteries now are. What exactly that is, however, we can't be sure of yet. We also can't be sure whether it will happen before 2035.
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?). The latter, meanwhile, would run up against the basic problem that if you squeeze more energy into a tighter space, the resulting battery is likely to be less stable/more vulnerable to having its stored energy released in an uncontrolled manner. And, of course, the more stored energy you have, the greater the damage that an uncontrolled release of it will do.
Quote from: Duke87 on July 09, 2021, 10:14:32 PM
Quote from: kalvado on July 09, 2021, 11:13:36 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 09, 2021, 11:04:23 AM
For those of you who have, or who have experienced travel in, an EV, something I'm curious about as to Canada (and colder parts of the USA like North Dakota) is how running the heater affects range. Certainly we know AC usage has a significant effect on EV range. I assume running the heater must have some effect but that it's likely less of an impact than the AC has, consistent with ICE-powered vehicles.
I suspect it will be worse than heat.
It definitely will be. As a general rule of thumb, heating consumes more energy than air conditioning for a very simple basic reason: temperature difference. To be comfortable, the average human will want it to be somewhere in the range of 70 degrees, give or take a few. For air conditioning, even if it's 110 degrees outside (it usually is not), that's a 40 degree difference in temperature you're fighting against. But now for heating, if it's a roughly equally extreme -30 degrees outside, you're fighting against a 100 degree temperature difference! Since the rate of heat flow through the wall of the car is faster the greater the difference in temperature is (basic thermodynamics), even maintaining a larger temperature differential once you have achieved it will consume more energy.
Now, there are other confounding factors here. For one, as we all know, the sun heats up cars, whose surface area has a lot of glass. This hurts you when you're trying to cool the car but helps you when you're trying to heat it (though it doesn't help you at night, when it will be the coldest).
On the other hand, air conditioning works by pumping heat energy out of the car, and it can reasonably be expected to move 3 or more units of heat for every unit of energy it consumes. While it is possible (to a point) to reverse this process for heating, cars generally do not come built with two-way heat pumps and your car will be relying on electric resistance for heat, which only produces 1 unit of heat for every unit of energy it consumes (any more would violate the laws of physics). So the heater, in addition to needing to provide more output, is considerably less efficient at doing so.
Another thing to consider here regarding range is that batteries themselves are temperature sensitive. When it is really cold outside you will get less range even if you don't run the heat, simply because cold temperatures lower the electric resistance in the battery and cause it to lose energy faster.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 09, 2021, 06:49:05 PM
Quote from: kalvado on July 09, 2021, 06:10:47 PM
Sometimes I really envy those who don't know physics, not even at high school level. World must be really full of miracles and wonders to such lucky folks!
https://insideevs.com/news/515413/tesla-models-battery-pack-reduction/
Yeah, I don't know physics. Just relaying what I've been seeing, which is increased efficiency.
One thing I will say: Lithium Ion batteries as we know them are not the end of the road as far as battery technology is concerned. At some point, something else will become commercially available that is objectively better and Lithium batteries will become as quaint as Nickel-Cadmium batteries now are. What exactly that is, however, we can't be sure of yet. We also can't be sure whether it will happen before 2035.
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?). The latter, meanwhile, would run up against the basic problem that if you squeeze more energy into a tighter space, the resulting battery is likely to be less stable/more vulnerable to having its stored energy released in an uncontrolled manner. And, of course, the more stored energy you have, the greater the damage that an uncontrolled release of it will do.
Heh. All that energy just stored in a car...what could possibly be the solution? Oh, I know: A tank of gasoline that's fed into an ICE. :D
Quote from: Duke87 on July 09, 2021, 10:14:32 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.
Quote from: vdeane on July 10, 2021, 10:15:16 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on July 09, 2021, 10:14:32 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.
My guess: there hasn't been a reason to. Until now.
Thanks Canada!
Quote from: vdeane on July 10, 2021, 10:15:16 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on July 09, 2021, 10:14:32 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.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 10, 2021, 11:04:55 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 10, 2021, 10:15:16 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on July 09, 2021, 10:14:32 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.
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.
Quote from: vdeane on July 10, 2021, 10:15:16 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on July 09, 2021, 10:14:32 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.
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.
Quote from: vdeane on July 11, 2021, 12:21:35 AM
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.
Quote from: Duke87 on July 11, 2021, 01:12:46 AM
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.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 11, 2021, 01:45:35 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.
Quote from: Duke87 on July 11, 2021, 02:15:24 AM
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.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 11, 2021, 01:45:35 AM
Quote from: vdeane on July 11, 2021, 12:21:35 AM
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.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 11, 2021, 03:26:15 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on July 11, 2021, 02:15:24 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 13, 2021, 01:19:54 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??
Quote from: kalvado on July 13, 2021, 02:14:08 PM
Freon 32. And who needs that ozone layer anyway??
Not sure what you mean.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 13, 2021, 05:50:35 PM
Quote from: kalvado on July 13, 2021, 02:14:08 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.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 13, 2021, 01:19:54 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...
Quote from: Alps on July 13, 2021, 08:50:22 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 13, 2021, 01:19:54 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...
Quote from: kalvado on July 13, 2021, 09:39:04 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.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 13, 2021, 10:30:30 PM
Quote from: kalvado on July 13, 2021, 09:39:04 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.
Quote from: kalvado on July 13, 2021, 09:39:04 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.
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.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 13, 2021, 10:30:30 PMCould 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.