Inflation/Gas Prices/Rising Prices in General

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I know people at work that have been looking into EV's and it's a great idea until they start putting together the costs of running 240V into their garage with energy management systems where you are looking at +$4k off the bat before you even purchased the vehicle. It's simply something that the average family likely can't afford. I think in the beginning of this whole climate change panic people were of the mindset that it was the oil companies that were going to take the hit for combating climate change and we would just move on to EV's but it's not nearly that simple as it's going to cost everyone a lot of money and sacrifices.

I agree with your point, but that sounds high. I installed a new, dedicated 100A panel in my garage, along with the 14-50 plug, and the total was about $2,500. The plug alone was only like $350, or something around there.

And there is a $1,500 rebate available if you do it.

[Enoch Root]

The $2,500 included a heater as well (which you also need)

[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.

[transplant99]

Seems somewhat appropriate for this thread.

Confidential government documents show a large gap between the federal Liberals’ promised target for reducing the oil and gas industry’s greenhouse gas emissions and what an internal analysis says is achievable by 2030.

The documents, which include findings from officials in the Environment and Natural Resources departments, show that when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau unveiled his government’s updated emissions reduction plan in March, Ottawa’s own numbers indicated the industry could reach only about half of the 81-megatonne cut it was assigned.

The internal analysis reveals that more emissions cuts in the oil and gas sector, beyond what department officials assessed was “technically feasible,” would likely come from production cuts.

A separate document, marked “draft,” includes a detailed breakdown of which technologies can be used to cut emissions in the oil and gas sector and by how much they’re expected to drop by 2030 – totalling up to 43 megatonnes. The document labelled almost two thirds of those potential cuts as “high risk.” This is because of high costs, questions around technology readiness and the time required to build new infrastructure.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/poli...+Article+Links

[blankall]

Originally Posted by GGG

I mean 1873 and 1954 as the beginnings of solar cells kind of suggests we had manufacturing challenges to over come to make them viable. These manufacturing techniques were driven by the semi-conductor industry. So isn’t like we were sitting doing nothing in adjacent technologies.

So yes if solar panels did not exist today we could quickly accelerate to where we are today by utilizing the tech created in adjacent fields.

I think at most you would be talking 5 years.

People are also making the assumption that government/international involvement would have sped up technological advancement. As it is, all the major businesses in the world were already going full steam ahead with attempting to create better batteries, conductors, power sources, etc..

Government involvement is often horribly inefficient and can strangle innovation, not promote it. Even when governments get together on an international scale things often go horribly awry. Look at what happened with the Kyoto protocols. They were written in a way that didn't account for growing populations and gave both Russia and China no restrictions. If the Kyoto protocols had been followed, they would have forced Canada, Australia, and the USA to buy carbon credits from Russian and China. It's an absurd result that in no way accomplishes the goal of reducing carbon emissions.

Now imagine if companies like Sony, Mitsubishi, GE, etc.. had all been caught up in similar regimes. Regulated and then forced to pay tribute to totalitarian regimes. Historically, how much innovation has gone on when government regulation gets out of control? Almost all innovation comes from the private sector and from open societies.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I agree with your point, but that sounds high. I installed a new, dedicated 100A panel in my garage

Was that being run through the main panel? Or was there an entirely separate line running to your garage (and if so was that through the house or did they run a new line to your garage)? And do you have a link to the rebate, my Google-fu is failing.

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

And there is a $1,500 rebate available if you do it.

Hmmm, more info on this rebate? I was contemplating doing this work, but cost was prohibitive.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Buying a hybrid or electric vehicle is great for people with the money to do it and for people who are not renters. Basically, people who are already in the better financial position are in a position to save money. People are literally spending 5-10% of their yearly income to commute to work, and the number is just going up.

True, but you don't need to be rich to drive a fuel efficient car. Even at current BC diesel prices (about $2.25/L), my 15 year old TDI wagon only costs about $0.12/km in fuel. That's what a lot of bigger vehicles cost at $1.00/L gas.

Yeah, some people need big vehicles for work and it sucks for them. But a pretty large segment of the vehicle buying public places little value on fuel efficiency, and unfortunately there's a cost to that when energy prices rise.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by opendoor

True, but you don't need to be rich to drive a fuel efficient car. Even at current BC diesel prices (about $2.25/L), my 15 year old TDI wagon only costs about $0.12/km in fuel. That's what a lot of bigger vehicles cost at $1.00/L gas.

Yeah, some people need big vehicles for work and it sucks for them. But a pretty large segment of the vehicle buying public places little value on fuel efficiency, and unfortunately there's a cost to that when energy prices rise.

I mentioned this before, but depending on how much you drive, it can actually be more environmentally friendly to drive a fuel efficient gas vehicle over an electric vehicle.

There are large environmental costs to producing batteries, and power from the grid isn't free. I'd like to see what the exact figure is, but there's a threshold for lower kms where driving the compact becomes more environmentally friendly than driving the electric vehicle. This doesn't apply to the majority of people (this article says 95%), who likely drive more than 7000+ KMs per year...but then again, maybe many of those people should be using transit or biking:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/26/life...perts-say.html

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by opendoor

True, but you don't need to be rich to drive a fuel efficient car. Even at current BC diesel prices (about $2.25/L), my 15 year old TDI wagon only costs about $0.12/km in fuel. That's what a lot of bigger vehicles cost at $1.00/L gas.

Yeah, some people need big vehicles for work and it sucks for them. But a pretty large segment of the vehicle buying public places little value on fuel efficiency, and unfortunately there's a cost to that when energy prices rise.

Quotes a vehicle that is no longer manufactured

My gas golf gets about $0.115 per km at current gas cost.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I agree with your point, but that sounds high. I installed a new, dedicated 100A panel in my garage, along with the 14-50 plug, and the total was about $2,500. The plug alone was only like $350, or something around there.

And there is a $1,500 rebate available if you do it.

$2500 sounds like a hell of a deal today for a 100A panel. The guy at work just showed me the estimate as it involves drilling through the foundation from the main panel and running tech cable all around the house, under the deck and into the garage as well as the power management system for the 50A circuit and Tesla wall charger installed at $3700 plus tax. No mention of a rebate.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Quotes a vehicle that is no longer manufactured

Yeah, that's the point. You don't need to buy a brand new expensive electric or hybrid car to have low fuel costs.

My gas golf gets about $0.115 per km at current gas cost.

My numbers where based on BC prices, where gas and diesel are 20-25% higher than Calgary. But still, that just supports my point. There are lots of fuel efficient options for people who don't necessarily need larger vehicles (or can get away with only one larger vehicle in a family). At $0.115/km, a commuter driving 20,000km a year is spending about $2.3K a year in fuel. That's not an exorbitant sum.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by blankall

I mentioned this before, but depending on how much you drive, it can actually be more environmentally friendly to drive a fuel efficient gas vehicle over an electric vehicle.

There are large environmental costs to producing batteries, and power from the grid isn't free. I'd like to see what the exact figure is, but there's a threshold for lower kms where driving the compact becomes more environmentally friendly than driving the electric vehicle. This doesn't apply to the majority of people (this article says 95%), who likely drive more than 7000+ KMs per year...but then again, maybe many of those people should be using transit or biking:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/26/life...perts-say.html

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.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by photon

Was that being run through the main panel? Or was there an entirely separate line running to your garage (and if so was that through the house or did they run a new line to your garage)? And do you have a link to the rebate, my Google-fu is failing.

Upgraded primary panel, with an added 100A breaker, which feeds a direct line running to new sub-panel in the garage. Interior - went up from main panel to first floor ceiling joists, then over to garage ceiling and down.

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

Hmmm, more info on this rebate? I was contemplating doing this work, but cost was prohibitive.

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.

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

$2500 sounds like a hell of a deal today for a 100A panel. The guy at work just showed me the estimate as it involves drilling through the foundation from the main panel and running tech cable all around the house, under the deck and into the garage as well as the power management system for the 50A circuit and Tesla wall charger installed at $3700 plus tax. No mention of a rebate.

That may explain the difference in the cost. At least I had no drilling through concrete.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by blankall

People are also making the assumption that government/international involvement would have sped up technological advancement. As it is, all the major businesses in the world were already going full steam ahead with attempting to create better batteries, conductors, power sources, etc..

Meanwhile others are saying that if the free market consumers hadn’t been manipulated into believing fossil fuel use wouldn’t inevitably need to be greatly reduced there would have been a greater demand for better technology sooner which would have lead to more private money being invested into research and development, which ought to have lead to less government involvement. Free market only works flawlessly when greed and external influences aren’t a factor.

I don’t disagree that governments are doing an exceptionally poor job of handling this. Setting total emissions targets without any practical road map to achieve those targets is pointless. What they should be doing is promoting and expanding the use of existing greener technology and infrastructure that we know work so that people can more easily afford and more practically actually use those things. Will that make it so they hit their targets? Probably not, but it would actually reduce fossil fuel use which is more than I can say about most of their current plans which likely won’t result in their targets being achieved anyways.

[Enoch Root]

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.

Also, electricity rates are flat in AB, right? So there is no cost benefit to overnight charging

[blankall]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Meanwhile others are saying that if the free market consumers hadn’t been manipulated into believing fossil fuel use wouldn’t inevitably need to be greatly reduced there would have been a greater demand for better technology sooner which would have lead to more private money being invested into research and development, which ought to have lead to less government involvement. Free market only works flawlessly when greed and external influences aren’t a factor.

I don’t disagree that governments are doing an exceptionally poor job of handling this. Setting total emissions targets without any practical road map to achieve those targets is pointless. What they should be doing is promoting and expanding the use of existing greener technology and infrastructure that we know work so that people can more easily afford and more practically actually use those things. Will that make it so they hit their targets? Probably not, but it would actually reduce fossil fuel use which is more than I can say about most of their current plans which likely won’t result in their targets being achieved anyways.

You are making the assumption that greed and technological innovation are mutually exclusive motivations. As previously stated, if Sony had invented the modern cell phone battery in 1985, they would rule the world right now.

I think people in this thread are also vastly underestimating the amount of resources these corporations were putting into battery, conductor, energy, etc.. technology. To simply state that government pressure would have sped up the process somehow isn't well supported.

What you're talking about is more about decreasing emissions in the past. Sure that would have been possible, but would have come at the expense of consumption or furthering industry. For example, not developing the oil sands and forcing all people to ride transit would decrease emissions. That's not going to speed up innovation.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Meanwhile others are saying that if the free market consumers hadn’t been manipulated into believing fossil fuel use wouldn’t inevitably need to be greatly reduced there would have been a greater demand for better technology sooner which would have lead to more private money being invested into research and development, which ought to have lead to less government involvement. Free market only works flawlessly when greed and external influences aren’t a factor.

I don’t disagree that governments are doing an exceptionally poor job of handling this. Setting total emissions targets without any practical road map to achieve those targets is pointless. What they should be doing is promoting and expanding the use of existing greener technology and infrastructure that we know work so that people can more easily afford and more practically actually use those things. Will that make it so they hit their targets? Probably not, but it would actually reduce fossil fuel use which is more than I can say about most of their current plans which likely won’t result in their targets being achieved anyways.

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.

[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

[belsarius]

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.

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.