EV's and Transportation as a Service to kill Alberta economy by 2030?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

It's interesting that many objections revolve around when this could happen...not if it will happen. Whether the changes happen in 14 years 20 years or 30 years the Alberta economy still needs to figure out how to leverage this.

Yes, but the timing and the depth of the adoption are the primary variables with respect to how much it affects the economy and how quickly.

The whole crux of it was 2030. No one is saying those trends don't exist, but if full adoption is more like 2045 than 2030, that makes a massive difference on the conversation and on the potential impact to the economy.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

lol

GM does not consider themselves Blockbuster. And they are not investing in Lyft because they are concerned for their own demise. They are simply covering bases.

Still waiting for any kind of reasoning where corporations are going to provide all these vehicles for public benefit.

There is a big difference between the existence of TAAS, and it's dominance.

What's the lol for? Kind of all knowing and smug. That's my act, stop stealing it.

While cars will be made, who will now be deciding where the cars come from? Blockbuster sold the same movies that netflix did. In fact, people were spending more on movies than ever before. What changed is the delivery model. The TaaS companies will be buying in mass orders and individuals won't be (at least not to near the same extent). If the automakers don't have those relationships they'll be dead.

As for motive, it's simple: profit.

Let's use Netflix. Why did they invest in technology to save you money on consuming media? Companies are already investing billions in making transportation cheaper via scale and automation because its a potentially huuuuge industry.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by taco.vidal

I think certain trends point to death of wide spread car ownership as we know it North America.
-Fewer young people are driving. Im on mobile and not looking up stats now. I think the numbers are something like 50% of 16 years old had their license in the 1980s and today that it down to 30%. The same stats for people in their mid 20s are down as well. From what Ive read, millenials dont show much interest in driving.
-Trends show that people are leaving the suburbs to live closer in the city
-I think vehicle ownership numbers have been trending down for a while. Total sales might be up and more people might own multiple vehicles but the percentage of people without a vehicle is increasing. Id have to look this one up but Im pretty certain Ive seen the numbers for this in economic articles.
-Adding to the point above, fewer people are owning homes. More people are living in condos and other higher density dwellings. Gone are the days where people want a house in the burbs with double or triple garage and a vehicle for each driver in the family.
-Less people are having kids and those that are, are having just about 1 child. Less need for vehicle than with a family of 2, 3 or more kids.

Times are changing. Just because you today at 40 cant imagine life without your cars and minivan, and cant imagine not living in the burbs, and cant imagine raising a child in a condo, doesnt mean that up and coming generations arent welcoming a lifestyle different than yours.

Lifestyles are changing for younger generations where they dont need vehicles and cant afford vehicles.

I think in the more distant future, private vehicle ownership will be only for the very wealthy.

First of all, the fact that millenials are driving less is a minor statistical fact compared to the whole economy. And we don't know yet if the change is even permanent. Who knows? Maybe once they grow up and start having children, more will drive.

But let's say you're right and they permanently won't drive as much. And future generations follow suit. Even if that is the case, it would take two generations for it to have any material impact on the economy.

This isn't a case of old people saying 'I want my car, dammit'. It's a case of people (rationally) saying: the change, and the rate of change, that is being suggested is WILDLY unrealistic.

Will these treads all take place? Probably. Will it happen in a manner even remotely close to what the article suggested? Highly unlikely

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

What's the lol for? Kind of all knowing and smug. That's my act, stop stealing it.

While cars will be made, who will now be deciding where the cars come from? Blockbuster sold the same movies that netflix did. In fact, people were spending more on movies than ever before. What changed is the delivery model. The TaaS companies will be buying in mass orders and individuals won't be (at least not to near the same extent). If the automakers don't have those relationships they'll be dead.

As for motive, it's simple: profit.

Let's use Netflix. Why did they invest in technology to save you money on consuming media? Companies are already investing billions in making transportation cheaper via scale and automation because its a potentially huuuuge industry.

Netflix is a better and cheaper delivery method for movies that is easily adopted.

TaaS purchasing and maintaining millions of vehicles is a completely different thing.

You keep saying 'profit'. Is Car2Go profitable? Are cabs profitable? Is Uber profitable?

Their profitability (or lack of with Uber) doesn't mean they are suddenly more adopted. The big challenge here is the huge, macro-adoption that is being suggested.

I don't see that much adoption that quickly. And I sure as hell don't see profitability for the amount of capital outlay that would be required by the suggested scenario.

[Enoch Root]

GM is investing in them because, if they become a thing, GM wants them buying GM vehicles. That is nothing like your example of Blockbuster. Nor does it validate any of the predictions.

[Ashasx]

nm

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

It's not a secret and it doesn't really work. It may work in the near future, but right now you're not getting a 52 year old Oil worker with 32 years in the industry to retrain successfully. He'll go on EI and wait until this one blows over except it never will. Retraining is a great idea, and every government does it. It's just not successful

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try, and it doesn't mean we should wait till its a major problem.

The wind/solar industry in Alberta could be much bigger. Hell, renewables could be much bigger across Canada as is. I know 66% of our electricity comes from renewable resources, but why can't we work to get it higher?

Sure, you might not retrain a 52 year old oil worker, but you can get people coming out of school into this industries right now.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by btimbit

If they can improve the range and charging, I'm 100% on board. I guess I just don't see it happening like that

We haven't seen major advancements in battery technology in a long time. With the rise of electric vehicles and the tax credits involved you will see big players stick more money into it.

At this point it is only a matter of time.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Azure

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try, and it doesn't mean we should wait till its a major problem.

The wind/solar industry in Alberta could be much bigger. Hell, renewables could be much bigger across Canada as is. I know 66% of our electricity comes from renewable resources, but why can't we work to get it higher?

Sure, you might not retrain a 52 year old oil worker, but you can get people coming out of school into this industries right now.

I don't disagree there should be some retraining programs available, just stating the fact that by and large they're not very effective. Pain is coming for those who do not start becoming flexible now

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

It's actually much, much bigger than that, but probably more complex and harder to gauge. If commercial drivers are affected, so will vehicle manufacturers, lawyers, insurance, police, surgeons, mechanics, car part suppliers, parking lot companies, municipalities, governmental employees, etc, etc, etc.

It's massively wide reaching. For example, my sister works for Alberta Transportation ensuring proper log keeping etc for commercial truckers. That job would be mostly gone.

It's an order of disruption potentially bigger than the internet

I agree that a lot of people will be out of work because current jobs as we know them will be eliminated. However, similar to the industrial revolution years ago, there is also the possibility that Industry 4.0 will create that many more jobs that right now we don't see the need of.

I agree that a lot of people will suffer, but you can't stop the train, and we will need to adapt as a society.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Why would it drop so much? Uber rates are already unsustainable as it is the largest money loser in the tech startup history because it tries to compete with private transport and mass transit. And where its drivers make do with low pay and drive old but cheap to operate cars.

And if operating costs of a vehicle dropped so much, people would just buy more of it so they wouldn't ever have to deal with hassles of strangers ever again. In that future, people needing to rent a ride will be as rare as people today that need pay phones.

Self driving cars would eliminate how expensive it is and that is exactly where Uber is going.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Azure

I agree that a lot of people will be out of work because current jobs as we know them will be eliminated. However, similar to the industrial revolution years ago, there is also the possibility that Industry 4.0 will create that many more jobs that right now we don't see the need of.

I agree that a lot of people will suffer, but you can't stop the train, and we will need to adapt as a society.

That's why there needs to be universal income eventually, but that is a whole different topic I suppose.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by btimbit

What about the transportation industry, is there an electric engine that provides enough torque to haul around the heavy loads that we see these days? Or power heavy construction equipment?

2030 seems a tad too soon to be writing off O&G

Elon Musk is claiming the electric truck Tesla is working on will have more torque than any semi on the market.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Azure

Self driving cars would eliminate how expensive it is and that is exactly where Uber is going.

The expense is in operating the cars, not in the driver, who make very little even with old, heavily depreciated cars. Trying to compete against privately owned cars and mass transit means you'll lose money even if you don't pay the driver.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by Azure

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try, and it doesn't mean we should wait till its a major problem.

The wind/solar industry in Alberta could be much bigger. Hell, renewables could be much bigger across Canada as is. I know 66% of our electricity comes from renewable resources, but why can't we work to get it higher?

Sure, you might not retrain a 52 year old oil worker, but you can get people coming out of school into this industries right now.

An anecdotal story came from a cleantech workshop I was working at in Devon. There was a former oil patch equipment salesman who had pivoted to selling solar products. For him, the pivot was surprisingly easy.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by accord1999

The expense is in operating the cars, not in the driver, who make very little even with old, heavily depreciated cars. Trying to compete against privately owned cars and mass transit means you'll lose money even if you don't pay the driver.

You also have to include the value of the drivers and passengers attention. Autonomous vehicles allow occupants to consume digital content while driving. Basically, google etc sees these as enabling increased time for people to interact with their products and services. There is a whole new category of 'apps' that are aiming to take advantage of this.

The eyeball time of autonomous vehicle occupants is a big part of the business model.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by accord1999

The expense is in operating the cars, not in the driver, who make very little even with old, heavily depreciated cars. Trying to compete against privately owned cars and mass transit means you'll lose money even if you don't pay the driver.

An interesting question would be do you continue to subsidize mass transit in a world of automated cars?

If a commuter car becomes a 3 wheeled pod that drives itself within inches of the nearest vehicles you get the density of transit plus the flexibility of cars.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

GM is investing in them because, if they become a thing, GM wants them buying GM vehicles. That is nothing like your example of Blockbuster. Nor does it validate any of the predictions.

It's very similar. GM/Ford/Volkwagon/ don't really make their money manufacturing cars, they sells cars. And though they will continue to be sold, the model of how they'll be sold and who they'll be sold to is going to change. Blockbuster sold movies. That didn't change, but the model of how and to whom did. Their business didn't dry up, it changed dramatically.

[curves2000]

This to me is a fascinating debate and one that I discuss with a lot of people on a regular basis. Currently there is a lot of doom and gloom scenarios being floated regarding the end of ownership of cars, the adaption of electric and hybrid cars and the end of oil use as we know it in the very near future. The world is changing in a lot of ways and in lot of ways some of the strides being made with technology isn't nearly as great looking back. Sometimes I think that we, in the developed world think we are going to drive certain changes globally right away. It won't happen and here are some points.

1) The first hybrid to be launched globally was the Toyota Prius in Japan in 1997, 20 years ago. The first hybrid to be launched in North America was the Honda Insight in 1999. When these cars launched there was a massive push for people adopt these technologies because the earth and humanity was facing a peak oil crisis, we were rumored to be quickly depleting the earth's oil reserves and needed to get off quickly. Looking at this situation in 2017, where is the peak oil? Do anyone of you own an electric or hybrid car? Does anyone in your significant group of friends or family own any? These technologies exist but the adaption is super low considering the time frame looking back.

2) When people talk about the changing landscape for oil and gas use they need to look at the global perspective. Just because a few trendy hipsters in North America may think that oil use is dead going forward doesn't change the fact that literally BILLIONS of people in the BRIC related countries are glamouring for ever growing standards of living. In China they are constructing international airports for them to travel globally on $300 million aircraft at an astonishing rate. India's Tata Motor's is selling $2000 automobiles to the masses, profitably I may add as opposed to Tesla which losses money on $60k USD automobiles.

3) There are so many things to discuss in so much detail but a lot of times changes in the long run just won't materialize due to financially realities of the market place. If we are all going to be driving around in Uber's that are electrically powered, where will all the tax revenue that is currently associated with fuel use come from? Will governments need to get rid of EV tax breaks? Will it now cost you $70 to charge your Tesla once a week instead of paying for fuel?

So many questions that still need to be answered but changes won't happen nearly as quick as people suspect.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by curves2000

1) The first hybrid to be launched globally was the Toyota Prius in Japan in 1997, 20 years ago. The first hybrid to be launched in North America was the Honda Insight in 1999. When these cars launched there was a massive push for people adopt these technologies because the earth and humanity was facing a peak oil crisis, we were rumored to be quickly depleting the earth's oil reserves and needed to get off quickly. Looking at this situation in 2017, where is the peak oil? Do anyone of you own an electric or hybrid car? Does anyone in your significant group of friends or family own any? These technologies exist but the adaption is super low considering the time frame looking back.

First commercial cell phone was released in 1973. In 1995 you would be hard pressed to think of someone who had a cell phone. 20 years later, its hard to think of anyone that doesn't have a cellphone.

The Scandanavian countries are early adopters of a lot of technology. Norway is over 20% market share of electric vehicles already. It's a similar spike to the cell phone market.

2) When people talk about the changing landscape for oil and gas use they need to look at the global perspective. Just because a few trendy hipsters in North America may think that oil use is dead going forward doesn't change the fact that literally BILLIONS of people in the BRIC related countries are glamouring for ever growing standards of living. In China they are constructing international airports for them to travel globally on $300 million aircraft at an astonishing rate. India's Tata Motor's is selling $2000 automobiles to the masses, profitably I may add as opposed to Tesla which losses money on $60k USD automobiles.

I think many people in the developing world will skip right over internal combustion engines and go straight to electric. Like how now you have almost 100% saturation of cell phones despite most of these people never having access to a landline.

China already has the biggest market for electric cars. I suspect it will grow rapidly as people there are getting tired of living in a smog cloud.