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

[Calgaryflamesgirl34]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Thanks, appreciate the info!

You're welcome!

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by Stormageddon

But is everyone's place of work going to have a charger that employees can use? Who pays for things like inductive red light charging? We aren't going to get free electricity to charge all the time.

So why does Alberta equip parking lots with block heater plug-ins ?

[Stormageddon]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

So why does Alberta equip parking lots with block heater plug-ins ?

True, but keeping a few block heaters warm is a little less energy intensive than charging a ton of batteries.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Stormageddon

True, but keeping a few block heaters warm is a little less energy intensive than charging a ton of batteries.

Not really. A block heater eats about 75-85% of the electricity a car charger does, and produces no value other than to prevent the block from seizing. The car charger provides range while preventing the fuel storage from becoming useless at extreme temperatures. The benefit is obvious.

[Stormageddon]

Originally Posted by New Era

Not really. A block heater eats about 75-85% of the electricity a car charger does, and produces no value other than to prevent the block from seizing. The car charger provides range while preventing the fuel storage from becoming useless at extreme temperatures. The benefit is obvious.

I'm not questioning the benefit. I'm just wondering why the typical employer would be providing their employees with free "fuel".

If you're using the same outlet for charging as you do for your block heater then, yes, the Wattage is quite similar between the two.

Also a block heater is only used a few weeks a year for the typical gas vehicle. An electric car would be plugged in every work day.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Stormageddon

I'm not questioning the benefit. I'm just wondering why the typical employer would be providing their employees with free "fuel".

If you're using the same outlet for charging as you do for your block heater then, yes, the Wattage is quite similar between the two.

Also a block heater is only used a few weeks a year for the typical gas vehicle. An electric car would be plugged in every work day.

You asked the question, you got the answer.

Why would an employer do it? I don't know? Maybe they are environmentally conscious and want to drive their employees to be the same? That is a great benefit for the employer, as well as the employee. When I worked in Calgary my employer paid for underground parking for me to the tune of $350 a month. I'm sure that is much higher right now. Why would they do that?

Seems you're just trying to dig up reasons this shouldn't work rather than acknowledging the reality facing us that we have to begin transitioning off of fossil fuels and that this is a good way of encouraging people to begin the migration. Considering it costs about $540 a year to charge an EV (based on 15,000 miles a year) that seems to be a drop in the bucket to what underground parking is for an employer, and paying for an employee like me, so if they can move someone to a surface lot or parkade with charging, and save money, the costs seems to make sense all around.

[Stormageddon]

Originally Posted by New Era

You asked the question, you got the answer.

Why would an employer do it? I don't know? Maybe they are environmentally conscious and want to drive their employees to be the same? That is a great benefit for the employer, as well as the employee. When I worked in Calgary my employer paid for underground parking for me to the tune of $350 a month. I'm sure that is much higher right now. Why would they do that?

Seems you're just trying to dig up reasons this shouldn't work rather than acknowledging the reality facing us that we have to begin transitioning off of fossil fuels and that this is a good way of encouraging people to begin the migration. Considering it costs about $540 a year to charge an EV (based on 15,000 miles a year) that seems to be a drop in the bucket to what underground parking is for an employer, and paying for an employee like me, so if they can move someone to a surface lot or parkade with charging, and save money, the costs seems to make sense all around.

I am digging up reasons, but not because I don't think we need to move off fossil fuels eventually. I just don't see how ev's are the answer unless there is a humongous breakthrough in battery technology, both capacity and service life. People in rural areas can not rely on ev's full time. This is more where agriculture is concerned. The new technology needs to replicate the convenience of gas/diesel pretty much exactly. A farmer can't be sitting around waiting for his combine to charge in the fall and hope the weather doesn't turn to crap.

Even for my job. Let's say it's winter and I need to take the bucket truck to do some major work over many hours. How does the battery last long enough for something like that. Or even if I need to come down and warm up, what happens then? There are many scenarios that need to be gone through, to me.

I think I'm really straying this thread off the path now, so I'd better not go any further.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by Stormageddon

I am digging up reasons, but not because I don't think we need to move off fossil fuels eventually. I just don't see how ev's are the answer unless there is a humongous breakthrough in battery technology, both capacity and service life. People in rural areas can not rely on ev's full time. This is more where agriculture is concerned. The new technology needs to replicate the convenience of gas/diesel pretty much exactly. A farmer can't be sitting around waiting for his combine to charge in the fall and hope the weather doesn't turn to crap.

Even for my job. Let's say it's winter and I need to take the bucket truck to do some major work over many hours. How does the battery last long enough for something like that. Or even if I need to come down and warm up, what happens then? There are many scenarios that need to be gone through, to me.

I think I'm really straying this thread off the path now, so I'd better not go any further.

The point not to lose track of is that, it's not that EV's will replace all vehicles in all situations, it's that enough EV's become mainstream and change in demand for hydrocarbons. This will disrupt the economy of oil producing regions.

[GGG]

Gas demand should increase though. As unless there is a breakthrough in Nuclear or small scale solar, Gas is really the easiest way to electrify especially with the conversion away from coal. So the good news for Alberta is we still have decent gas assets.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Yes, natural gas is looking good for a long time

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Stormageddon

I am digging up reasons, but not because I don't think we need to move off fossil fuels eventually. I just don't see how ev's are the answer unless there is a humongous breakthrough in battery technology, both capacity and service life. People in rural areas can not rely on ev's full time. This is more where agriculture is concerned. The new technology needs to replicate the convenience of gas/diesel pretty much exactly. A farmer can't be sitting around waiting for his combine to charge in the fall and hope the weather doesn't turn to crap.

Even for my job. Let's say it's winter and I need to take the bucket truck to do some major work over many hours. How does the battery last long enough for something like that. Or even if I need to come down and warm up, what happens then? There are many scenarios that need to be gone through, to me.

I think I'm really straying this thread off the path now, so I'd better not go any further.

Over 80% of people live in urban areas in Canada, much higher in other countries. These concerns are not going to hold adoption of EV's back.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Stormageddon

I am digging up reasons, but not because I don't think we need to move off fossil fuels eventually. I just don't see how ev's are the answer unless there is a humongous breakthrough in battery technology, both capacity and service life. People in rural areas can not rely on ev's full time. This is more where agriculture is concerned. The new technology needs to replicate the convenience of gas/diesel pretty much exactly. A farmer can't be sitting around waiting for his combine to charge in the fall and hope the weather doesn't turn to crap.

Even for my job. Let's say it's winter and I need to take the bucket truck to do some major work over many hours. How does the battery last long enough for something like that. Or even if I need to come down and warm up, what happens then? There are many scenarios that need to be gone through, to me.

I think I'm really straying this thread off the path now, so I'd better not go any further.

http://www.hybridcars.com/wrightspee...-fuel-savings/

Those solutions are already being addressed. I think your concerns are unfounded. The majority of freight in the world is moved through distribution channels using similar technology. Freight trains are a form of EV, just without batteries, and instead using a diesel engine to generate electricity on demand to drive the wheels.

[Stormageddon]

Originally Posted by New Era

http://www.hybridcars.com/wrightspee...-fuel-savings/

Those solutions are already being addressed. I think your concerns are unfounded. The majority of freight in the world is moved through distribution channels using similar technology. Freight trains are a form of EV, just without batteries, and instead using a diesel engine to generate electricity on demand to drive the wheels.

Ah, I see. If hybrid's are in the equation then that does take care of my concerns. But the end goal is to get to pure EV, no?

I think EV's do serve a great purpose and will fill, likely, the majority of people's needs. However, I don't think they will be at the same level of total adoption as gas/diesel vehicles.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Stormageddon

Ah, I see. If hybrid's are in the equation then that does take care of my concerns. But the end goal is to get to pure EV, no?

I think EV's do serve a great purpose and will fill, likely, the majority of people's needs. However, I don't think they will be at the same level of total adoption as gas/diesel vehicles.

We will get to pure EVs in the future. Improvements in storage capacity continue to be achieved each year. New technology is developing but needs to be approved before it gets implemented. For example here is the history of batteries.

http://www.visualcapitalist.com/evol...ry-technology/

Here's an article on trends in battery technology.

http://www.futureage.eu/files/dd33e8...tace_Birke.pdf

You must also recognize there are market forces at work that drive development underground and keep information quiet. No one wants to be the next A123, and get in bed with a company like GM, only to have the tech devevelopment dollars dry up and the products buried. Ironic that anyone would trust GM after they killed the electric car the first time!

Anyhow, I think you, and a lot of other people, have unreasonable expectations on EVs and batteries. Lithium Ion batteries have been around for a few decades, but really only been widely adopted since the turn of the century. Development has not been pushed like it has in the past few years as the EV appears to be the killer app for the technology. Development will continue and will increase efficiencies. Compare the development in computers to that of battery tech.

Computers have been around since the end of WWII. How long do you think it took for computer development to advance? Your computer is probably using gigabytes of memory to run the O/S and applications. It took until the 90s to break the MB barrier on commercial systems. Let that roll around a while.

http://gizmodo.com/the-trillion-fold...liz-1706676799

We are at the infancy of the tech that will drive the future. Give it time. By the end of this decade I think we will have a doublng of capacity. The tech is there.

[GGG]

So you support the EV1 conspiracy?

[Stormageddon]

I suppose, but to assume anything is going to follow the same advancement trajectory as computers seems a little optimistic.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GGG

So you support the EV1 conspiracy?

It's not a conspiracy. When GM refuses to honor the contract put forward in their lease agreement, they are the ones who are making the decision for the consumer as to what they can do with their particular car. When GM elects to destroy your car rather than sell it to the consumer, what other explanation is there? Have you ever seen behavior like this elsewhere?

Conspiracy theory? Give me a break.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by New Era

It's not a conspiracy. When GM refuses to honor the contract put forward in their lease agreement, they are the ones who are making the decision for the consumer as to what they can do with their particular car. When GM elects to destroy your car rather than sell it to the consumer, what other explanation is there? Have you ever seen behavior like this elsewhere?

Conspiracy theory? Give me a break.

Well they repossessed cars they leased out for for about $250 per month that cost between 100k and 250k to make. What I was asking was do you believe they had a commercially viable car that they refused to sell and that oil companies pushed for its surpression?

Which part of the lease do you believe they violated. There was never an option to purchase or residual value contained within the lease.

And yes, if you have technology that is proprietary but not commercially viable of course you are going to recover it instead of letting it be free in the market.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GGG

Well they repossessed cars they leased out for for about $250 per month that cost between 100k and 250k to make.

Production cost of the vehicle is kind of an irrelevant point. Toyota leased and then sold thousands of Prius vehicles for a loss. If GM were so concerned about recouping production costs, would they not have been better off selling the vehicles to all the owners who wanted to keep them rather than crush them at the proving grounds in Arizona?

What I was asking was do you believe they had a commercially viable car that they refused to sell and that oil companies pushed for its surpression?

Was the EV1 "commercially" viable? No, because it was not designed to be commercially viable. It was designed to test the viability of the concept and whether the public would accept the product. Since the product was only tested in three cities it obviously was not intended for wide scale adoption. Ironically, those customers who signed the leases were massive fans of the product and wanted to extend the leases or buy the product outright. So the platform was viable to those customers who tested the product.

Do I think oil companies had influence in killing the platform? There's no doubt. It wouldn't be the first time that a company purchased and buried technology for strategic purposes. It wouldn't be the first time that oil companies played a role in burying technology which would be harmful to the future sales of their products. This extends to electric vehicles and battery technologies.

https://www.theguardian.com/business...uction-patents

Which part of the lease do you believe they violated. There was never an option to purchase or residual value contained within the lease.

I don't think they violated the lease. I believe they refused to follow SOP in industry, and follow through on a second lease or sell the product to the consumer, because they wanted to bury the program. This program was not about viability or about building a new market, it was about being able to say they tried and they failed to build an electric car that would appeal to consumers. Unfortunately, they failed on both accounts.

And yes, if you have technology that is proprietary but not commercially viable of course you are going to recover it instead of letting it be free in the market.

Sure, except there are cars available for study. They didn't recover all of them. Seems like another flawed excuse. This wasn't about protecting proprietary technology.

[GGG]

I guess I see it as California eliminated the ZEV requirement therefore there was no reason to invest in a ZEV when battery tech wasn't yet at the point that you could ever produce an economic model.

You crush them to keep the tech in house. Apparently the smithonian has the only functioning model with the electrical systems in tact. It seems much more reasonable that the stated reasons of liability were why they ended the program.

You have spent a half billion or so on a program that is no where near commercially viable and the technology to make it viable is 20 years out and the only reason you were investing in it disappeared. So instead the R+D money going into EVs it was moved into the other options to meet California emissions requirements.