Yes it is, but even there it's still a fraction of the total car market. And with subsidies disappearing, sales have fallen dramatically, meaning that Tesla shouldn't expect particularly higher sales that it does today.
It's not a small fraction, it's literally half of the entire market. While sales are decreasing in China, they're decreasing by 10-15%. Tesla was barely in China as importing them was very expensive. They were maybe 5-6% before this, and will assuredly be much higher after
I don't think it is all or nothing. In a place like Quebec where they have excess hydro power they can go directly to electric cars and it will be a benefit. For vehicles that drive all day like delivery vehicles and semis(when the tech becomes workable) it will help reduce emissions(and dirty diesel particulates). For everyone to have an electric car, pronto? I don't think that is all that beneficial currently.
The problem is in the grand scheme of things Quebec or even Manitoba, both of whom have mostly hydro, they don't make a difference in emission levels regardless of what they do.
Not saying it is a bad thing that they have hydro, in fact Canada as a whole has been years ahead of the game when it comes to electricity generation which for some reason has been completely ignored by Greta and her fellow dummies.
Yet, even if we move to 98% renewables for electricity generation as a country it STILL won't make much of a difference.
If we want to change the entire system through the world, we need to go from coal - > clean natural gas (using North American technology) in 5 years or less. Especially in China & Russia, both of whom do not have the gas technology we have here for electrical generation.
At the same time you go nuclear (using current and new technology) in 10 years or less, and renewables in 25 years or less. That gives each step time to build up their efficiency.
Only then are you ready for massive electrical car ownership.
Right now it is simply more efficient to have a natural gas boiler than it is to have an electric one, even if you have hydro. Most provinces / countries don't have hydro, so therefore the electric boiler is EXTREMELY inefficient.
Not sure what you mean here, how are we supposed to propel our cars and buses in a way that reduces emissions if we don't go electric?
That is exactly my point. From a world perspective having an electric car won't make a difference unless your electrical generation is completely green & renewable.
At this point that is something most countries don't have.
It isn't. An boiler requires a fixed and predictable amount of energy to operate, a BEV is much much more efficient than a petrol car the energy in a Model 3 battery is about what is contained in 2 gallons of gas and goes 300 miles.
In terms of a BEV being clean it depends greatly on how the electricity is generated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
That is exactly my point. From a world perspective having an electric car won't make a difference unless your electrical generation is completely green & renewable.
At this point that is something most countries don't have.
Even if you generate power using natural gas the BEV is still better. But I get your point if we don't go with renewable energy the advantage is largely negated.
We are still seeing massive new coal based power generation. If we WERE at no coal and mostly natural gas while heading for more renewables I would agree that we should perhaps massively subsidize electrical vehicle ownership through the world.
I suppose in Canada subsidizing electrical vehicle ownership over the long-term is beneficial as I believe we are moving more towards low / no emission power generation.
But from a world perspective it is like you said, largely negated with the way things are going.
According to the Canadian government we generate 82% of power from non-GHG sources. Not sure exactly what that means but they also say we are at 67% from renewables. To me that says we are in a good position to be powering a good chunk of our transport via electric.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to zamler For This Useful Post:
Tesla had a "miracle" Q3 2018 too; before falling back onto large losses to start 2019. And YoY revenues are declining; so much for exponential growth of EV.
The Chinese ramp comes in time for the severe decline of EV sales in China as subsidies are cut.
Since large losses and declining revenues are your measure for failure of a company or an industry, maybe you can look at the performance of Suncor (down 27%), CNRL (down 31%), Encana (down 72%), and Husky (down 51%) over the past 18 months? Exxon is even off 22% during the same time. This is an industry that receives massive subsidies and tax breaks, so it certainly doesn't appear to be doing very well. Paints a pretty bleak picture for the industry and its future, amiright?
The problem is in the grand scheme of things Quebec or even Manitoba, both of whom have mostly hydro, they don't make a difference in emission levels regardless of what they do.
Not saying it is a bad thing that they have hydro, in fact Canada as a whole has been years ahead of the game when it comes to electricity generation which for some reason has been completely ignored by Greta and her fellow dummies.
Yet, even if we move to 98% renewables for electricity generation as a country it STILL won't make much of a difference.
Huh? It would make a pretty big difference. In Canada, about 1/3 of GHG emissions are from transportation and electricity generation.
Greta and her fellow dummies are calling for the world to try harder. They aren't picking on Alberta or Canada for their electricity generation. Strange statement to make.
Quote:
If we want to change the entire system through the world, we need to go from coal - > clean natural gas (using North American technology) in 5 years or less. Especially in China & Russia, both of whom do not have the gas technology we have here for electrical generation.
At the same time you go nuclear (using current and new technology) in 10 years or less, and renewables in 25 years or less. That gives each step time to build up their efficiency.
Only then are you ready for massive electrical car ownership.
Right now it is simply more efficient to have a natural gas boiler than it is to have an electric one, even if you have hydro. Most provinces / countries don't have hydro, so therefore the electric boiler is EXTREMELY inefficient.
The electric car is the same way.
This is a strange plan, as it takes 5 to 10 years to build a single nuclear plant and there's not near enough money around to do many as it's the most expensive to build by a fairly wide margin. Most future nuclear projects are being cancelled due to cost.
As for natural gas, it cuts ghg emissions by a little less 50% vs coal, but isn't cheaper or better in most places in the world than adding lots wind and solar and keeping coal or gas for peaks.
Price wise, countries are already going towards renewables simply due to cost. India cancelled 14GW of coal powered electricity projects in favour of solar project just this month. I don't think we ever see 100% renewables, and that shouldn't be the goal. The reductions we need are achievable at far lower than 100%. But we need to get higher quickly
You do bring up a real big problem with ghg emissions (especially in Canada) that is little discussed and has very few solutions: home heating. Both boilers and home heating are reliant on fossil fuels and I'm not sure we can eliminate that work any current technology. We can houses more efficient and use heat pumps, but natural gas has no real competitor for heating. I use an electric hot water tank and it's crazy expensive even at cheap electricity prices (it uses more electricity than my electric vehicle!). I don't know what the answer is here honestly.
Last edited by Street Pharmacist; 10-23-2019 at 09:57 PM.
It's not a small fraction, it's literally half of the entire market. While sales are decreasing in China, they're decreasing by 10-15%. Tesla was barely in China as importing them was very expensive. They were maybe 5-6% before this, and will assuredly be much higher after
Since large losses and declining revenues are your measure for failure of a company or an industry, maybe you can look at the performance of Suncor (down 27%), CNRL (down 31%), Encana (down 72%), and Husky (down 51%) over the past 18 months? Exxon is even off 22% during the same time. This is an industry that receives massive subsidies and tax breaks, so it certainly doesn't appear to be doing very well. Paints a pretty bleak picture for the industry and its future, amiright?
Please expand on “massive” subsidies and tax breaks, in detail if possible.
You do bring up a real big problem with ghg emissions (especially in Canada) that is little discussed and has very few solutions: home heating. Both boilers and home heating are reliant on fossil fuels and I'm not sure we can eliminate that work any current technology. We can houses more efficient and use heat pumps, but natural gas has no real competitor for heating. I use an electric hot water tank and it's crazy expensive even at cheap electricity prices (it uses more electricity than my electric vehicle!). I don't know what the answer is here honestly.
There is no substitute for home heating we either use natural gas or freeze to death.
That's kind of skewed numbers because you're comparing the inflated numbers seen as people bought their vehicles right before the announced end to the subsidies and right after.
And yet they still represent a 3rd of the global market and double the entire US market. You still think that's a small, trivial market for them to enter?
Last edited by Street Pharmacist; 10-23-2019 at 11:05 PM.
Electric heat could be used, similar to cars it’s a source problem, unlike cars it’s far less efficient then gas.
The heating element itself is essentially 100% efficient, the energy put into it turns almost completely into heat. The problem is the amount of energy needed, natural gas, coal, oil and the like are energy dense. Like I said a 1000 pound Tesla battery has the same energy as 17 pounds of petrol.
In a petrol car most of the energy is turned into heat not propulsion the electric car opposite. The thing is for a cold climate the inefficiency of the gas engine is an advantage the waste heat warms the cabin in a BEV you have to use way more energy than normal to warm up the cabin. I haven't done the math but the total amount of energy is going to be almost the same BEV versus petrol which means on a cold day in Calgary your BEV is potentially going to be about as efficient as the average 4-cylinder gas car.
On another note I'd like to see battery electric buses (including school buses) they are much cheaper to maintain, way cleaner, and cheaper to fuel.
I think what I'm trying to say is the way forward for energy use is we should utilize a variety of sources not blindly throw taxes at certain industries and hope for the best.
The Following User Says Thank You to zamler For This Useful Post:
Enough detail? And that's just Canada. In the United Sates its even worse.
It’s late, but I only managed to get through two of the links. The Guardian article just says subsidies but again no detail on what that means. Then it goes onto say that climate change is about preserving human life. That’s just hysterical and wrong at this juncture and the notion of which is dispelled by reading through the climate change reports issued by the UN, which I have. So it’s tough to take the Guardian seriously here and in general their slant and bias does lead me to wonder how such a blatantly biased news org can be relied on for this subsidy topic.
Similar to the second link, which gets into how Canada falls down on “transparency “ of what the subsidies actually are, if any. I believe what people may be interpreting as subsidies are in fact capital development expenses and capital exploration expenses which are not oil and gas specific but applied to all types of industry capital investments. So it’s disingenuous to suggest that CDE and CEE are oil and gas subsidies.
I’ll try to read through your other links tomorrow. I’m not saying what you’re saying isn’t true I just rarely see the actual specifics and back up of what people mean when they say subsidies and it sounds a bit high level and buzzwordy to me. Terms used to rile people up. I wonder how Albertans, Saskatchewan and others would like it if the oil truly did stop, and royalties truly did stop, and Canada’s wealth from oil and gas truly did stop. Have people thought about that?
What does energy do for modern life and access to basic human necessities for “preserving human life”? I see things like famine, people freezing to death, etc. As equally troubling problems as climate change. Access to food is particularly important, no?
The problem with climate change is that if we deal with it properly people will die and if we don’t people will die. So, the way I see it, people are going to die. And that is obviously horrible, but I don’t see how we get around it.
Last edited by Mr.Coffee; 10-24-2019 at 01:46 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Mr.Coffee For This Useful Post:
