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

[para transit fellow]

Well China now has a plan to get on the EV trend

http://theamericanenergynews.com/mar...ehicle-10sep17

[GGG]

As far as I can tel in the article here is the quote from the Chinese government on the issue

“The ministry has also started relevant research and will make such a timeline with relevant departments. Those measures will certainly bring profound changes for our car industry’s development.”

Meaning when the tech is cheaper we will ban ICEs

[para transit fellow]

I see the China announcement not as "if" but "when"

My organization could use five of these wheelchair taxi's if they were available in North America.

http://www.lvcmobility.co.uk/nissan-combi.php

The NV-200 is already in north America with a wheelchair conversion ( was selected as standard taxi for New York City). The electric version available in Europe already has the range we need. unfortunately there is no word if the electric version will come to North America.

I have been doing research and a full recharge (AKA tank of gas) is roughly one eighth a tank of gasoline. This is significant when you burn a half tank every day.

[para transit fellow]

ok now I see a second article about china and electric vehicles

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...c-vehicle-push

[Tinordi]

Good twitter thread on China's aanouncement:

https://twitter.com/tsrandall/status/907274829920907264

[GGG]

It's a pretty meaningless announcement. It like everyone else is saying we will ban ICEs when economically feasible to do so. Until then we will score green points by saying things we don't have to commit to.

[Flash Walken]

On the one hand, ya sure, on the other hand, I don't see anyone releasing statements or policy directives to increase ICE share of the road.

So, sure, maybe meaningless. But probably not.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

On the one hand, ya sure, on the other hand, I don't see anyone releasing statements or policy directives to increase ICE share of the road.

Don't need to when sales have grown as much as they have in China in the last decade.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by accord1999

don't need to when pollution has grown as much as they have in china in the last decade.

fyp

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

On the one hand, ya sure, on the other hand, I don't see anyone releasing statements or policy directives to increase ICE share of the road.

So, sure, maybe meaningless. But probably not.

These announcements are as meaningful as the Koyoto accord, Copenhagen, and Paris. They are fancy meaningless statements to make it look like you are doing something now while kicking the ball down the road.

When the tech is ready you won't need to ban ICEs. No one ever really banned the horse drawn carriage or the chariot or the Zeppelin, or the transatlantic passenger ship. When tech replaced them they ceased to exist.

So China's statement is meaningless.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by GGG

These announcements are as meaningful as the Koyoto accord, Copenhagen, and Paris.

Or Vancouver's banning of nat gas.

[s_procee]

Is Vancouver actually banning Natural gas? what is their other option?

[s_procee]

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/new...beandmail.com&

They don't even have an alternative that provides enough energy yet, weird

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by s_procee

Is Vancouver actually banning Natural gas? what is their other option?

They announced that they were banning it by the year 20xx.

Then they announced it was just for a certain number of things that use natural gas.

Then they realized that it's going to jack up natural gas prices by 600%. So they limited it to new builds and new zoning.

Then they realized they had no better solution than natural currently.

The whole banning hydrocarbons by a certain date is a joke.

Subsidize green energy. Encourage other development. But to say we're not using this source of energy in 4 terms after this current government is going to be in power is nothing but pandering, gaining votes, and pushing the problem down the line.

The Canadian government said they'd shut down the oil sands by 2100. That's as meaningful as the NHL saying we're looking at slashing.

There's clearly an appetite for greener energy. If it's profitable, doable, and useable on a large scale it will take off. Governments banning it years beyond their power is a big #### swinging contest that gains votes and stock gains.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by s_procee

They don't even have an alternative that provides enough energy yet, weird

Exactly. There's currently no 'proper' alternative for ICE, but lets ban everything because that gains 'social license'.

I'm not suggesting we shouldn't look at alternatives, but banning drinking water isn't the solution to the world's potable water crisis.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

Exactly. There's currently no 'proper' alternative for ICE, but lets ban everything because that gains 'social license'.

But there is. The synchronous electric motor is a 'proper' alternative to the ICE. The problem not yet addressed is the 'satisfactory' density of energy storage in a battery to provide a range that doesn't make consumers piss their pants about it. The EM is more efficient and a simpler mechanism for driving a vehicle, so it is clearly a replacement for the more complex and less efficient ICE.

I'm not suggesting we shouldn't look at alternatives, but banning drinking water isn't the solution to the world's potable water crisis.

Announcing the ban on that format will force manufacturers to act and develop the technology to sell in that marketplace. Manufacturers have been slow to move in that direction, even with substantial enticements, so a flat out ban should get them working on solving the problem. China has the ability to enforce the ban, as they are already well ahead of the curve in green tech and have several of their manufacturers producing EVs.

http://chinaautoweb.com/electric-cars/

[GGG]

The ban does not make sense. TheCalifornia model of continually increasing emissions standards makes much more sense as it sets short term targets that must be met which than the market will meet.

These dates which do nothing..

[Fozzie_DeBear]

More signals that China's policies are about moving away from ICE's...

China is 30% of the global car market...

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envir.../ev-revolution

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

More signals that China's policies are about moving away from ICE's...

It's just another article referring to the same vague statement made by the Chinese vice minister.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by GGG

These announcements are as meaningful as the Koyoto accord, Copenhagen, and Paris. They are fancy meaningless statements to make it look like you are doing something now while kicking the ball down the road.

When the tech is ready you won't need to ban ICEs. No one ever really banned the horse drawn carriage or the chariot or the Zeppelin, or the transatlantic passenger ship. When tech replaced them they ceased to exist.

So China's statement is meaningless.

The economic benefits and other market forces will be the most powerful driver of adoption I'm sure....but I don't think your buggy/zeppelin examples translate all that well.

Why did we stop selling leaded gasoline?