Inflation/Gas Prices/Rising Prices in General

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

This cost has to be looked at as in investment into your home then cost of car ownership, like adding central air conditioning or updating a bathroom. As time progresses houses that have have the 220 ran to the garage will become more and more desirable.

I want a 220 and a gas line run to our garage so very, very badly.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Even ignoring battery production, in some places an electric car generates more emissions than a fuel efficient car because of how the electricity is generated. I read a study on Canadian EV subsidies, and it showed that in Alberta and Saskatchewan, there is actually an increase in emissions when switching from something like a Prius to an electric car because of the type of electricity generation in those provinces. In BC, Manitoba, and Quebec it's much, much different because of hydroelectricity, but it's definitely not a slam dunk in places that have higher emission grids.

You may be right about the Prius(hybrid) to fully electric argument, though a source would be helpful. In any event though it’s less strong of an argument from a net environmental benefit perspective when you consider that the 2 jurisdictions where it may be problematic have far fewer drivers by a wide margin than the jurisdictions where it does decrease overall emissions. I think when most people look at the situation they are comparing going from solely gas powered(which most people drive) to fully electric, which in the vast majority of cases would have a positive net environmental benefit regardless of jurisdiction.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Mining for lithium is turning into a monstrous scourge environmentally. Yet the climate change advocates never mention it. Frankly, they provide misinformation regularly as well. Does that change what needs to happen moving forward? No. People are capable of filtering misinformation. And demand will always drive innovation.

Is it perfect? Of course not. Do things get manipulated in wrong directions some times? Of course. But whining that oil companies are holding back progress is completely missing the mark of what the problems are here

What are the problems in your opinion? I’ve honestly never heard anyone argue that there is no environmental cost to mining lithium. But I do hear a lot of opponents of electric vehicles bring up that there is a huge environmental cost to it without ever mentioning how that cost compares in the long run to stopping it and continuing to rely on fossil fuels. Do you have any data which suggests there would be fewer net carbon emissions produced by abandoning lithium mining in favour of continuing to power vehicles with fossil fuels?

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by belsarius

There is a good calculator to compare vehicles and their emissions and cost which takes into account the energy generating mix of each province.

http://www.albertaev.ca/why-electric/

For example in Alberta a Tesla Model 3 is 7.08 kg Co2/100km vs a Civic needing 17.3. In Manitoba which is 97% hydro generated the Tesla drops to 0.22 kg Co2.

It's fun to just play around with.

I guess that depends on the electricity source mix at any given time. It seems like the numbers right now on that site are showing about 450g of C02 per kWh for Alberta, which is definitely lower than the data I've seen which was more in the 600g per kWh range (but maybe the grid is cleaner now compared to then).

The cost difference is pretty stark though. Fuel costs are about $1.5K less for an EV in BC compared even to a relatively efficient Civic at today's gas prices for every 10,000km driven.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I guess that depends on the electricity source mix at any given time. It seems like the numbers right now on that site are showing about 450g of C02 per kWh for Alberta, which is definitely lower than the data I've seen which was more in the 600g per kWh range (but maybe the grid is cleaner now compared to then).

The cost difference is pretty stark though. Fuel costs are about $1.5K less for an EV in BC compared even to a relatively efficient Civic at today's gas prices for every 10,000km driven.

Alberta's electricity information on here is supposedly live, while the other provinces are all historical - so I think using this page will definitely get varied results depending on time of day and weather conditions in the province. It will be interesting to see what it shows at 6 pm tonight or tomorrow.

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I have had trouble finding online as well. My dealer (Audi) has provided all info and is submitting the application on my behalf - so talk to your dealer.

But if I can get a link from them, I will post it here.

Please do send if you find out, cause the only dealer I have doesn't do cars. And I'm definitely not going to buy a car just to get a rebate.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

You may be right about the Prius(hybrid) to fully electric argument, though a source would be helpful. In any event though it’s less strong of an argument from a net environmental benefit perspective when you consider that the 2 jurisdictions where it may be problematic have far fewer drivers by a wide margin than the jurisdictions where it does decrease overall emissions. I think when most people look at the situation they are comparing going from solely gas powered(which most people drive) to fully electric, which in the vast majority of cases would have a positive net environmental benefit regardless of jurisdiction.

This is the study:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...7705091930986X

But it was focused more on the efficacy of EV subsidies in terms of value. And I think it raises some good points about why they're not necessarily that effective in reducing emissions. A $5K EV subsidy ends up costing an estimated $300-400 per ton in reduced emissions over the first 10 years of the vehicle's life in Canada, whereas subsidies in other areas (i.e. electricity generation, heat pumps, etc.) can often achieve significantly more reductions for the same outlay.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

What are the problems in your opinion? I’ve honestly never heard anyone argue that there is no environmental cost to mining lithium. But I do hear a lot of opponents of electric vehicles bring up that there is a huge environmental cost to it without ever mentioning how that cost compares in the long run to stopping it and continuing to rely on fossil fuels. Do you have any data which suggests there would be fewer net carbon emissions produced by abandoning lithium mining in favour of continuing to power vehicles with fossil fuels?

I made no such claim - or even a reference. Nice attempted deflection, and complete miss on getting the point.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

This is just garbage.

There are approximately 1 BILLION passenger vehicles (cars and light trucks) in the world. The potential profits, for designing new batteries (and every other technical item) required for bringing EVs to market at a reasonable price, are incalculably astronomical. I mean, Tesla alone was valued at over $1T not too long ago.

There is PLENTY of motivation to bring new technology to market.

This hasn't been a 'those nasty oil companies keep lying to us' problem, this has been a 'we simply haven't been able to get it done yet' problem.

Have the oil companies been guilty of providing information to support their position? Of course. But that happens everywhere, in every industry. Demand for new and better technology are inexorable. But the demands have to actually be achievable.

The oil companies having a "position" on this is kind of like saying Donald Trump had a "position" that the 2020 election was fraudulently stolen from him. It was no "position", it was completely made up nonsense that had no basis in reality, meant to further his own ends regardless of the overall consequences for US and the world.

Oil companies have spent decades spreading dangerous lies. That's a fact.

You keep going on and on about EV batteries as if that's all there is to decarbonizing the economy. It isn't. Consider this, if all power generating plants in the world today emitted zero carbon emissions, and the only burning of fossil fuels was from vehicles on the road (and perhaps planes in the sky, depending on technological advancements there), we would be much better shape than we are today in terms of reaching net zero in a relatively short time frame.

There are other consequences attributable to the spread of oil industry lies, that have led to increased carbon emissions and pollution of the planet. The way we've planned our cities, creating massive amounts of urban sprawl and huge road networks, all designed to basically require everyone to have a personal vehicle to get places, and therefore boost oil industry profits. Cities should have made a major push toward building high density communities and more investment in public transit, instead of the endless urban sprawl model that was embraced.

Another thing to consider, splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen is a form of energy storage. How much farther would we be in the development of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and infrastructure, if it weren't for oil industry lies?

https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/fuel_cell.html

And I haven't even started talking about geothermal power yet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy

It is estimated that the earth's geothermal resources are theoretically more than adequate to supply humanity's energy needs, although only a very small fraction is currently being profitably exploited, often in areas near tectonic plate boundaries.

As a result of government assisted research and industry experience, the cost of generating geothermal power decreased by 25% over the 1980s and 1990s.
More recent technological advances have dramatically reduced costs and thereby expanded the range and size of viable resources. In 2021, the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that geothermal energy from a power plant "built today" costs about $0.05/kWh.

If you think these kinds of energy generation/storage methods (in addition to the ones I pointed out in an earlier post) wouldn't be a lot further along today than they currently are, if not for climate change denial, I really don't know what to say to you.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

And I haven't even started talking about geothermal power yet.
...

Please do. Start a new thread with a YouTube video explaining it all.

[Enoch Root]

Yeah - instead of whining about the oil companies, try posting useful information

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I made no such claim - or even a reference. Nice attempted deflection, and complete miss on getting the point.

Deflection? You randomly brought up the environmental costs of lithium mining as something green energy advocates are manipulating the facts on yet can’t even be bothered to articulate why you believe that to be the case. If the end result is overall fewer net carbon emissions by mining for lithium and using it in batteries then what exactly are you claiming that they are misleading people about? More importantly why would that have any bearing on whether or not the O&G industry are or have been guilty of providing misinformation?

I don’t think it’s ok or a good thing when any industry misleads the public for their own financial gain even if you want to rationalize it by saying everyone does it. If you’re ok with that then all the power to you, but at least back up what you are using as a comparable. My comments aren’t intended to be some sort anti-oil and gas boogie man, in fact I think they need to be a big part of the solution going forward. I just don’t think they should they be immune to criticism for questionable things they’ve done and to be completely honest their influence on environmental issues isn’t even at the top of my list of political issues I wish they would refrain from using their power and financial resources to influence.

I don’t understand why it’s so hard for people to accept that the industry’s actions had an intended reaction and that whether or not someone ideologically agrees with their motives it makes little to no sense for the industry to have voluntarily spent money on said action if they didn’t have a goal in mind that would be financially beneficial to them.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Yeah, really good stuff guys. I mean if you don't buy into right wing propaganda hook line and sinker, it clearly means you "don't understand economics". Got it.

And battery technology is all there could ever possibly be to solving the energy crisis. Good to know. There's no other way we could have ever possibly got off fossil fuels. Super.

Nuclear energy is how we get off fossil fuels. We've just sent decades making sure it didn't happen.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Azure

Nuclear energy is how we get off fossil fuels. We've just sent decades making sure it didn't happen.

Not really. Canada's electricity generation could be completely emission free, and it'd still only drop our emissions by about 10%. And we could get part of the way way there simply by having better inter-provincial connectedness (i.e. Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Alberta importing hydro power from Quebec, Manitoba, and BC rather than having those places export power to the US).

Reducing emissions beyond that requires significant electrification of things where either the technology isn't totally there yet or are quite capital intensive to implement (i.e. transportation switching almost totally to EVs, heat pumps that are cost effective in the coldest climates). Long term, more nuclear might help Canada if there are significant increases in demand, but hopefully SMRs will be ready for prime time by the time that actually happens. As it is, there hasn't been a whole lot of need for newly built, massively expensive traditional nuclear plants that take 20 years to build.

[Mathgod]

^ exactly. Nuclear is one option, but far from the only. Power generation isn't the main issue right now, power storage is.

[Azure]

By 'we' I mean the world.

Power generation isn't the main issue? How many coal plants are operating at full capacity again because countries didn't plan properly? Europe could be 100% nuclear right now if they really wanted too. Beyond that there isn't much more we can do because the technology to switch to EVs in mass isn't there anyways.

But yes, Manitoba should develop hydro generation and sell to other provinces. Good thing our country is so great at interprovincial trade.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

The oil companies having a "position" on this is kind of like saying Donald Trump had a "position" that the 2020 election was fraudulently stolen from him. It was no "position", it was completely made up nonsense that had no basis in reality, meant to further his own ends regardless of the overall consequences for US and the world.

Oil companies have spent decades spreading dangerous lies. That's a fact.

You keep going on and on about EV batteries as if that's all there is to decarbonizing the economy. It isn't. Consider this, if all power generating plants in the world today emitted zero carbon emissions, and the only burning of fossil fuels was from vehicles on the road (and perhaps planes in the sky, depending on technological advancements there), we would be much better shape than we are today in terms of reaching net zero in a relatively short time frame.

There are other consequences attributable to the spread of oil industry lies, that have led to increased carbon emissions and pollution of the planet. The way we've planned our cities, creating massive amounts of urban sprawl and huge road networks, all designed to basically require everyone to have a personal vehicle to get places, and therefore boost oil industry profits. Cities should have made a major push toward building high density communities and more investment in public transit, instead of the endless urban sprawl model that was embraced.

Another thing to consider, splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen is a form of energy storage. How much farther would we be in the development of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and infrastructure, if it weren't for oil industry lies?

https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/fuel_cell.html

And I haven't even started talking about geothermal power yet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy



If you think these kinds of energy generation/storage methods (in addition to the ones I pointed out in an earlier post) wouldn't be a lot further along today than they currently are, if not for climate change denial, I really don't know what to say to you.

What lies were the “oil companies” perpetuating? Can you please provide links resources etc. as to what you are alleging?

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

What lies were the “oil companies” perpetuating? Can you please provide links resources etc. as to what you are alleging?

Just as a start...

“The takeaway message across all of our work is that over and over, ExxonMobil has misled the public about climate change by telling the public one thing and then saying and doing the opposite behind closed doors.”

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...on-study-says/

The fossil fuel industry has perpetrated a multi-decade, multibillion dollar disinformation, propaganda and lobbying campaign to delay climate action by confusing the public and policymakers about the climate crisis and its solutions. This has involved a remarkable array of advertisements – with headlines ranging from “Lies they tell our children” to “Oil pumps life” – seeking to convince the public that the climate crisis is not real, not human-made, not serious and not solvable. The campaign continues to this day.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ge-was-nothing

Franta, who is pursuing a law degree and PhD at Stanford, is among a small cohort of researchers who track fossil-fuel industry propaganda. These historians, social scientists, and activists have documented the extent to which major oil companies knew their products were changing the climate as early as the 1960s, and how they poured tens of millions of dollars into sowing doubt about the science through the 1990s.

https://www.businessinsider.com/foss...ibility-2021-3


Resources? Start with Season 1 of Drilled
https://www.drilledpodcast.com/s1-th...limate-denial/

[blankall]

My view on this is that it doesn't take a genius to realize that burning fossil fuels is bad for the environment, regardless of beliefs on climate change. Anyone who's ever stood near a car exhaust, knows that what's coming out of there is harmful. Even before climate change became front and center, environmentalist groups were pushing a reduction in fossil fuels for reasons related to the ozone layer, acid rain, air quality, etc...

Anyone who claimed to be ignorant to air pollution, because an oil company was lying to them, is lying.

The issue once again is alternative options/technology and individuals sacrificing their own lifestyle.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by blankall

My view on this is that it doesn't take a genius to realize that burning fossil fuels is bad for the environment, regardless of beliefs on climate change. Anyone who's ever stood near a car exhaust, knows that what's coming out of there is harmful. Even before climate change became front and center, environmentalist groups were pushing a reduction in fossil fuels for reasons related to the ozone layer, acid rain, air quality, etc...

It's not like global warming or things like acid rain or consequences of world population growth were hidden by some dark oil cabal. It was taught in schools even decades ago, I remember it myself.