Ford seems to have turned out and is now going to make electric trucks on the F-150 platorm or a new dedicated platform which will have Ford-150 2nd generation.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/27/ford-ba ... lants.html

Now while the plans are certainly ambitious.to say the least, whether they can put metal to the pedal and stop their other offerings is when it will be put to test. As of now Volkswagen have a much better chance than Ford in the EV game. It does show that even sleeping giants like Ford are realizing if they don't do something then they will be bankrupt. The only problem with Ford is that they have enormous debt and BB rating which is just above junk in U.S.

https://www.fitchratings.com/research/c ... 07-05-2020

So how much capital will they be able to invest is under suspicion. If they even do half of what they have promised, it will be twice as big as Tesla's plant. We will probably know only after 4-5 years what happened or not.

What the Chinese are doing in their cities -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P7fTPLSMeI

M564038 wrote:

No reason to make fossil cars after 2025.
EVs have currently passed fossils in capability and quality, it is now only a question of production capability.

Until EVs are capable of 800kms with a 5 minute charge and have no battery degradation reducing range and requiring the eventual replacement of a new battery for the price in the 5 figure range, its a hard pass for me and many others.

I'm due for a new car in the next year or two, it sure as heck won't be an EV and it'll be car I plan on keeping for a very long time.

ACDC8 wrote:

M564038 wrote:

No reason to make fossil cars after 2025.
EVs have currently passed fossils in capability and quality, it is now only a question of production capability.

Until EVs are capable of 800kms with a 5 minute charge and have no battery degradation reducing range and requiring the eventual replacement of a new battery for the price in the 5 figure range, its a hard pass for me and many others.

I'm due for a new car in the next year or two, it sure as heck won't be an EV and it'll be car I plan on keeping for a very long time.

That will happen over a period of time, and you will see the value of your cars degrade, no offence meant.

https://carnewschina.com/2021/09/29/aio ... sover-suv/
This is what is coming from China.

pune wrote:

That will happen over a period of time,

It will, it's still a ways off and until then, EVs are of no interest for myself and many others.

pune wrote:

and you will see the value of your cars degrade,

Maybe, maybe not - regardless, not interested in its potential resale value, I'm interested in a non-automated, non tech heavy vehicle that I will enjoy driving for years to come and not sit around waiting for it to charge.

pune wrote:

no offence meant.

None taken.

pune wrote:

https://carnewschina.com/2021/09/29/aion-v-plus-is-a-new-chinese-compact-crossover-suv/
This is what is coming from China.

Chinese built cars will be a very tough sell in some parts of the world.

True, but the more they try to shield themselves from competition, the less innovative the home companies will be. Also came to know about these new ABB superchargers. https://www.evchargesolutions.com/v/dow ... x-24kW.pdf So next couple of years would be super-interesting as this is just the beginning. Who knows what will be achieved by the end of say 2-3 years, not to mention the decade.

Why do you need 800Km with 5 minute charging? That doesn’t fit any driving profile. Driving 1600Km woth a 5 minute break is not something you or anyone else do.

I don’t know wether lmto look upon such statements as jokes or sinple ignorance.

There is a very good chance your next car will be an EV.
There is also a very good chance you will be very happy with it. EV owners tend to be!

ACDC8 wrote:

M564038 wrote:

No reason to make fossil cars after 2025.
EVs have currently passed fossils in capability and quality, it is now only a question of production capability.

Until EVs are capable of 800kms with a 5 minute charge and have no battery degradation reducing range and requiring the eventual replacement of a new battery for the price in the 5 figure range, its a hard pass for me and many others.

I'm due for a new car in the next year or two, it sure as heck won't be an EV and it'll be car I plan on keeping for a very long time.

pune wrote:

True, but the more they try to shield themselves from competition, the less innovative the home companies will be. Also came to know about these new ABB superchargers. https://www.evchargesolutions.com/v/dow ... x-24kW.pdf So next couple of years would be super-interesting as this is just the beginning. Who knows what will be achieved by the end of say 2-3 years, not to mention the decade.

Already established car manufacturers will have no problem bringing EVs to the masses. The domestic bus manufacturing market here in Canada has already put a cork in the need for Chinese built buses, traditional car manufacturers will do the same for personal vehicles.

EVs are coming, we're not there yet, and we won't be in 2 to 3 years. A decade from now, it'll be a much bigger market, but not as big as EV advocates hope it will be.

M564038 wrote:

Why do you need 800Km with 5 minute charging?

Thats no one's business but my own. I've had this discussion with you in the past, there is no justification necessary to explain my driving requirements to anyone but myself.

M564038 wrote:

That doesn’t fit any driving profile.

Correction, it doesn't fit your driving profile.

M564038 wrote:

Driving 1600Km woth a 5 minute break is not something you or anyone else do.

There's a difference between taking a break and sitting around waiting for your car to charge. I take a break on my terms and requirements, not my car's terms and requirements.

M564038 wrote:

I don’t know wether lmto look upon such statements as jokes or sinple ignorance.

The only ignorance is the belief that EV advocates think that their driving lifestyle is shared by everyone else.

M564038 wrote:

There is a very good chance your next car will be an EV.

There is a 100% chance my car will not be an EV. In fact, it won't even be a hybrid. It'll be an economical, fossil fuelled, manually geared, fun to drive, tech reduced car that will bring a smile to my face every weekend road trip.

M564038 wrote:

There is also a very good chance you will be very happy with it.

There is a 100% chance I wouldn't be.

M564038 wrote:

EV owners tend to be!

Good for them. I'm not an EV owner, and I won't be one until I have no choice anymore - fortunately, that'll be many, many years down the road.

pune wrote:

pune wrote:

Now coming to the assertion about Taiwan, most EV cars are being sold in China, made fully in China, Taiwan has no role to play in it.

https://ibb.co/RSKHttp

BYD and Toyota are the only two car manufacturers who have their own chip fabrication plants. Tesla is apparently going to be the third to have its own. As the data shows in the above picture, the Chinese are moving briskly. If anything as this oil and gas article shows they are scared of what the Chinese are doing and hence putting all sorts of misinformation in order to scare the people.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gene ... -Fast.html

In fact, from what the latest I have been reading, all the Japanese giants, Honda, Toyota and Nissan best automobile engineers are being poached by the Chinese and being given far better opportunities to work on EV's than the Japanese. Of course, all the three giants above are anti-EV so they are losing some of their best people and probably writing their own death warrants in the process.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Automo ... automakers

Toyota was betting on Hydrogen, but with EV market quickly maturitng yet hydrogen is still just something being demonstrated, they're also trying to involve themselves into the EV market now.

c933103 wrote:

pune wrote:

pune wrote:

Now coming to the assertion about Taiwan, most EV cars are being sold in China, made fully in China, Taiwan has no role to play in it.

https://ibb.co/RSKHttp

BYD and Toyota are the only two car manufacturers who have their own chip fabrication plants. Tesla is apparently going to be the third to have its own. As the data shows in the above picture, the Chinese are moving briskly. If anything as this oil and gas article shows they are scared of what the Chinese are doing and hence putting all sorts of misinformation in order to scare the people.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gene ... -Fast.html

In fact, from what the latest I have been reading, all the Japanese giants, Honda, Toyota and Nissan best automobile engineers are being poached by the Chinese and being given far better opportunities to work on EV's than the Japanese. Of course, all the three giants above are anti-EV so they are losing some of their best people and probably writing their own death warrants in the process.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Automo ... automakers

Toyota was betting on Hydrogen, but with EV market quickly maturing yet hydrogen is still just something being demonstrated, they're also trying to involve themselves into the EV market now.

The problem with Toyota or rather hydrogen is it an extremely flammable gas, so you cannot put them into trucks or pipes as you easily can with fossil fuels. The only way hydrogen can be worked is to liquify it, and you have liquid hydrogen, which then can be safely transported.

https://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/index.p ... d-h2-fuel/

As shared in the article, it is both expensive and a complex thing. For electricity, it is all there, what just needs is to be strengthening. In hydrogen, you will have to do the whole thing from scratch. And there are supposed to be solutions like carbon capture and whatnot which are supposed to do this. What I haven't been unable to understand in carbon capture or other technologies, what happens to the polluted air or pollutants, where do they go, do they get mixed in water or earth or what ? That question has never been answered

There are lot of questions, add to the fact that the cars themselves will be much more complex than today's BEV's. Where it actually makes sense is in aircraft and spaceflights where they are used and such high costs can be easily borne (In spaceflights, it is already used). But for that again, engine manufacturers like Rolls Royce and others should be working on those designs as well as designs for fuel tankers and so on and so forth. Lots of safety and best practices will need to be acquired and trained on. I do see its uses but more in niche markets rather than mass markets, at least as of today, tomorrow have no idea what it brings with itself.

Arrival van and the LCV market -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCIN7cQFgew

pune wrote:

c933103 wrote:

pune wrote:

In fact, from what the latest I have been reading, all the Japanese giants, Honda, Toyota and Nissan best automobile engineers are being poached by the Chinese and being given far better opportunities to work on EV's than the Japanese. Of course, all the three giants above are anti-EV so they are losing some of their best people and probably writing their own death warrants in the process.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Automo ... automakers

Toyota was betting on Hydrogen, but with EV market quickly maturing yet hydrogen is still just something being demonstrated, they're also trying to involve themselves into the EV market now.

The problem with Toyota or rather hydrogen is it an extremely flammable gas, so you cannot put them into trucks or pipes as you easily can with fossil fuels. The only way hydrogen can be worked is to liquify it, and you have liquid hydrogen, which then can be safely transported.

https://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/index.p ... d-h2-fuel/

As shared in the article, it is both expensive and a complex thing. For electricity, it is all there, what just needs is to be strengthening. In hydrogen, you will have to do the whole thing from scratch. And there are supposed to be solutions like carbon capture and whatnot which are supposed to do this. What I haven't been unable to understand in carbon capture or other technologies, what happens to the polluted air or pollutants, where do they go, do they get mixed in water or earth or what ? That question has never been answered

There are lot of questions, add to the fact that the cars themselves will be much more complex than today's BEV's. Where it actually makes sense is in aircraft and spaceflights where they are used and such high costs can be easily borne (In spaceflights, it is already used). But for that again, engine manufacturers like Rolls Royce and others should be working on those designs as well as designs for fuel tankers and so on and so forth. Lots of safety and best practices will need to be acquired and trained on. I do see its uses but more in niche markets rather than mass markets, at least as of today, tomorrow have no idea what it brings with itself.

There are now some hydrogen buses and hydrogen trains running regularly in Japan, but the problem is cost and lack of economic of scale. Tesla really disrupted and popularized BEV but there're no similar thing for hydrogen.

c933103 wrote:

pune wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Toyota was betting on Hydrogen, but with EV market quickly maturing yet hydrogen is still just something being demonstrated, they're also trying to involve themselves into the EV market now.

The problem with Toyota or rather hydrogen is it an extremely flammable gas, so you cannot put them into trucks or pipes as you easily can with fossil fuels. The only way hydrogen can be worked is to liquify it, and you have liquid hydrogen, which then can be safely transported.

https://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/index.p ... d-h2-fuel/

As shared in the article, it is both expensive and a complex thing. For electricity, it is all there, what just needs is to be strengthening. In hydrogen, you will have to do the whole thing from scratch. And there are supposed to be solutions like carbon capture and whatnot which are supposed to do this. What I haven't been unable to understand in carbon capture or other technologies, what happens to the polluted air or pollutants, where do they go, do they get mixed in water or earth or what ? That question has never been answered

There are lot of questions, add to the fact that the cars themselves will be much more complex than today's BEV's. Where it actually makes sense is in aircraft and spaceflights where they are used and such high costs can be easily borne (In spaceflights, it is already used). But for that again, engine manufacturers like Rolls Royce and others should be working on those designs as well as designs for fuel tankers and so on and so forth. Lots of safety and best practices will need to be acquired and trained on. I do see its uses but more in niche markets rather than mass markets, at least as of today, tomorrow have no idea what it brings with itself.

There are now some hydrogen buses and hydrogen trains running regularly in Japan, but the problem is cost and lack of economic of scale. Tesla really disrupted and popularized BEV but there're no similar thing for hydrogen.

I have read about it, but then the Japanese have a cult death wish. And the problem is that the Japanese society is really weird about it. To take an e.g. see https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/th ... -them-that

I remember an article reading just a couple of years ago, which stated that none of the Fukushima 50 had been able to get or land a new job. And they still feel the guilt and remorse of what happened in Fukushima, even though the decisions taken for Fukushima were much beyond their pay packet. Most of the people who faced it were engineers and maintenance technicians, while the ones who did the actual planning, negotiations etc. were far removed from either the day-to-day operations or anything. In fact, on the day of the meltdown, the backbenchers (or management) created more chaos, as they were sharing instructions from books which had nothing to do with reality. Even if tomorrow some major incident occurs, the driver will blame himself (if he, she, they survive) the ones who took the decisions would have no regrets and sleep without any conscience, They also denied compensation to people, both the Fukushima 50 and other workers and the people living nearby.

In many ways, it reflects what has happened in USA but again nobody wants to question that

https://nuclear-news.net/2020/12/19/usa ... radiation/

And of course, every few years, we have a clarion call by the nuclear industry stating that they are 'safe' the new ones which have not been tested, but still somehow safe.

pune wrote:

c933103 wrote:

pune wrote:

The problem with Toyota or rather hydrogen is it an extremely flammable gas, so you cannot put them into trucks or pipes as you easily can with fossil fuels. The only way hydrogen can be worked is to liquify it, and you have liquid hydrogen, which then can be safely transported.

https://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/index.p ... d-h2-fuel/

As shared in the article, it is both expensive and a complex thing. For electricity, it is all there, what just needs is to be strengthening. In hydrogen, you will have to do the whole thing from scratch. And there are supposed to be solutions like carbon capture and whatnot which are supposed to do this. What I haven't been unable to understand in carbon capture or other technologies, what happens to the polluted air or pollutants, where do they go, do they get mixed in water or earth or what ? That question has never been answered

There are lot of questions, add to the fact that the cars themselves will be much more complex than today's BEV's. Where it actually makes sense is in aircraft and spaceflights where they are used and such high costs can be easily borne (In spaceflights, it is already used). But for that again, engine manufacturers like Rolls Royce and others should be working on those designs as well as designs for fuel tankers and so on and so forth. Lots of safety and best practices will need to be acquired and trained on. I do see its uses but more in niche markets rather than mass markets, at least as of today, tomorrow have no idea what it brings with itself.

There are now some hydrogen buses and hydrogen trains running regularly in Japan, but the problem is cost and lack of economic of scale. Tesla really disrupted and popularized BEV but there're no similar thing for hydrogen.

I have read about it, but then the Japanese have a cult death wish. And the problem is that the Japanese society is really weird about it. To take an e.g. see https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/th ... -them-that

I remember an article reading just a couple of years ago, which stated that none of the Fukushima 50 had been able to get or land a new job. And they still feel the guilt and remorse of what happened in Fukushima, even though the decisions taken for Fukushima were much beyond their pay packet. Most of the people who faced it were engineers and maintenance technicians, while the ones who did the actual planning, negotiations etc. were far removed from either the day-to-day operations or anything. In fact, on the day of the meltdown, the backbenchers (or management) created more chaos, as they were sharing instructions from books which had nothing to do with reality. Even if tomorrow some major incident occurs, the driver will blame himself (if he, she, they survive) the ones who took the decisions would have no regrets and sleep without any conscience, They also denied compensation to people, both the Fukushima 50 and other workers and the people living nearby.

In many ways, it reflects what has happened in USA but again nobody wants to question that

https://nuclear-news.net/2020/12/19/usa ... radiation/

And of course, every few years, we have a clarion call by the nuclear industry stating that they are 'safe' the new ones which have not been tested, but still somehow safe.

I find such emotion rather sensible. You drive a plane, it crashed, amid the best effort there are still many onboard died but you and a few other survived. It turned out there're mechanical failure on the plane. Yet human emotion dictate that the pilot would still feel negatively over the incident.
It should also be noted that, most people who have been known to die directly or indirectly as a consequence of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, were died due to the evacuation and continued dislocation from their hometown. And the evacuation was necessary due to the release of radioactive gas and hydrogen explosion spreading radioactive elements around, despite such release of gas was to minimize the chance of creating even bigger disaster and the hydrogen explosion cannot be prevented without supply of coolant. Hence, despite it's probably not their fault that the situation have evolved into what have happened, they still carry sense of emotion with what have happened.
Also, as noted, they are technicians and engineers working at the site. They don't just came from random places and work there during the event. Most of them have been continuously working at the power plant and connecting the power plant with local economy and politics. It make sense people would have negative feeling against people who works under them despite they are not decision makers, as they're also part of the company which promoted the use of nuclear power as a way to further the development of the economy and society in the area.

As for nuclear power. The problem is, almost all the nuclear plants in operation nowadays are still so-called "Generation 2" reactors, which mean those with design before Chernobyl, and would failure when there aren't active approprioate intervention from human workers. Since then, there are some "Generation 3" reactors, which feature some additional safety mechanism, specifically to deal with situation when the reactor fail, and then "Generation 4" reactors, which feature passive safety system, which mean external intervention wouldn't be required for the safety mechanism to kick in automatically, and that would be much safer than what's currently operating around the world. But since there are barely any will to construct any new nuclear reactor around the world, barely any of these actually become reality.
The situation is like, if in a situation where at the time when the world first introduce jet aircraft, models similar to de Havilland Comet filled the market, then people figured metal fatigue on such sort of aircraft model would cause fatal accident, which traumatized people over jet aircraft, causing aircraft makers continue building propeller aircraft, instead of building new jet aircraft model that address metal fatigue problem, even though it have been known how to address such problem. And then as those remaining Comet continue causing accidents due to metal fatigue, people continue to see jet aircraft as unsafe due to these incidents.

Nuclear, all generations of reactors included, are the safest way of producing electricity as measured in deaths/kWh.(source: WHO and others)

It is useless to discuss this from such a fringe example. There are actual statistics on people’s driving patterns, you know?
Range is no longer a hinderance for EV adoption at this point. Production capacity and pricing is nearly there.
The fossil industry propaganda feeding misinformation is the only thing standing in the way of full market penetration.

ACDC8 wrote:

M564038 wrote:

Why do you need 800Km with 5 minute charging?

Thats no one's business but my own. I've had this discussion with you in the past, there is no justification necessary to explain my driving requirements to anyone but myself.

M564038 wrote:

That doesn’t fit any driving profile.

Correction, it doesn't fit your driving profile.

M564038 wrote:

Driving 1600Km woth a 5 minute break is not something you or anyone else do.

There's a difference between taking a break and sitting around waiting for your car to charge. I take a break on my terms and requirements, not my car's terms and requirements.

M564038 wrote:

I don’t know wether lmto look upon such statements as jokes or sinple ignorance.

The only ignorance is the belief that EV advocates think that their driving lifestyle is shared by everyone else.

M564038 wrote:

There is a very good chance your next car will be an EV.

There is a 100% chance my car will not be an EV. In fact, it won't even be a hybrid. It'll be an economical, fossil fuelled, manually geared, fun to drive, tech reduced car that will bring a smile to my face every weekend road trip.

M564038 wrote:

There is also a very good chance you will be very happy with it.

There is a 100% chance I wouldn't be.

M564038 wrote:

EV owners tend to be!

Good for them. I'm not an EV owner, and I won't be one until I have no choice anymore - fortunately, that'll be many, many years down the road.

M564038 wrote:

It is useless to discuss this from such a fringe example.

I agree, discussing this is as useless as telling JW's that you're not interested in hearing about their religion.

M564038 wrote:

There are actual statistics on people’s driving patterns, you know?

My apologies that not everyone fits in to your statistics.

M564038 wrote:

Range is no longer a hinderance for EV adoption at this point.

It certainly is, very few EVs on the market can offer the range their current ICE vehicle offer, and certainly not with the same convenience of a quick refuel. Thats still something that people, at least those in countries that may have a large distance between cities with next to nothing in between, still put thought in to.

M564038 wrote:

Production capacity and pricing is nearly there.

"Nearly there" doesn't equate to "its here".

M564038 wrote:

The fossil industry propaganda feeding misinformation is the only thing standing in the way of full market penetration.

What misinformation?

I live in a big city, lots of EVs driving around here, they're great for commuters, I can count hundreds everyday. As soon as you head out on the highway and out of town, drive into the Interior where I grew up, EVs are pretty much non existent. Added to that, we don't have the necessary infrastructure in place here yet. Even where I live, where EVs are very popular, you head out to the mall on the weekend and there is line up for chargers and people fight each other over them. On the other hand, the city I live in just approved permits for 3 new gas stations, so fossil fuel will be here for a while yet.

Sure we have the highest fuel prices in the country, and yes, some cities here are thinking about implementing parking taxes on non-EV cars, but even with all that, fossil fuel cars are going to hang around a bit longer yet. Having said that, where I live, the cities rely on a 18.5 cent/per litre fuel tax, and as much as they push EVs, until they find new sources of revenue to fill the gap, they're more than happy that folks will continue to drive their ICE cars.

Public transportation will be going EV before the masses are driving EVs, and even that is currently in the test phase. Out of the over 200 hundred routes we have, only one is currently being serviced with BEV buses and its still in a test phase and if you think that some 1500 buses are going to be replaced with BEVs in the next couple of years, you are in dire need of a reality check.

For the record, I have no issues with EVs, except for Tesla's, but thats from a car enthusiasts POV. But I do have issues with people who try to push their agenda down others throats, they're like the vegans of the automotive world, and yes, I still and always will continue to eat beef and use my ICE vehicle to buy the beef

Furthermore,

The region I live in currently has the highest number of EVs per capita on the road in the Country, and that falls in at about 1.6% (4.5% if you include hybrids) - if you honestly believe that the other 95%, even 30% of vehicles on the road today are gonna be replaced by EVs in the couple of years, I've got some lovely ocean front property in Saskatoon I can sell you.

The Province I live in has set goals, 10% ZEV by 2025, 30% by 2030 and 100% by 2040, even that is ambitious, and they admit that. And thats for vehicles sold, not for on the road, so even if they achieve those goals, after 2040, there will still be a lot of ICE cars on the road here. Fortunately, by 2040, I'll be heading off into the final years of my driving career anyways, so I plan to enjoy the driving years from now until then to the fullest - shifting my own gears, taking breaks on my terms, not my cars, not relying on a bunch of useless tech

ACDC8 wrote:

Furthermore,

The region I live in currently has the highest number of EVs per capita on the road in the Country, and that falls in at about 1.6% (4.5% if you include hybrids) - if you honestly believe that the other 95%, even 30% of vehicles on the road today are gonna be replaced by EVs in the couple of years, I've got some lovely ocean front property in Saskatoon I can sell you.

The Province I live in has set goals, 10% ZEV by 2025, 30% by 2030 and 100% by 2040, even that is ambitious, and they admit that. And thats for vehicles sold, not for on the road, so even if they achieve those goals, after 2040, there will still be a lot of ICE cars on the road here. Fortunately, by 2040, I'll be heading off into the final years of my driving career anyways, so I plan to enjoy the driving years from now until then to the fullest - shifting my own gears, taking breaks on my terms, not my cars, not relying on a bunch of useless tech

If you had shared the country, then we could have tracked that and know the statistics overtime and share the same. From what is being seen, there is both push and pull by people for EV adoption. Now if a country/province doesn't do battery charging services, that is on them. This is what China did it in one city and they have been replicating that model in other Chinese cities too. If the Chinese can do it, why not others ???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P7fTPLSMeI

It is a straightforward question. And I did see that in the entire time you never talked about the health issues which I had shared above. Completely silent on that topic.

This actually tells the reverse -

https://emc-mec.ca/new/byds-electric-ca ... in-quebec/

And this tells that the rise in EV adoption in Canada is on the rise.

https://electricautonomy.ca/2021/07/27/ ... a-q1-2021/

In fact, seems the below site/resource is a good idea and barometer to know what is happening in Canada as far as EV adoption goes.

https://electricautonomy.ca/

pune wrote:

If you had shared the country, then we could have tracked that and know the statistics overtime and share the same. From what is being seen, there is both push and pull by people for EV adoption. Now if a country/province doesn't do battery charging services, that is on them. This is what China did it in one city and they have been replicating that model in other Chinese cities too. If the Chinese can do it, why not others ???

It is a straightforward question.

Not every Country is in the same spot as others are. Infrastructure costs money and takes time to build, doesn't happen overnight and has many aspects to overcome such as geography and current levels of infrastructure. Canada isn't China, we don't build superstructures in two days, it takes a lot longer to go through all formal processes. The transit agency here in Metro Vancouver started testing BEVs on one single route back in 2019 and they've just wrapped up the testing phase a couple of months ago and will make that single route completely BEV with no concrete plans to further expand the technology on further routes. Same goes with the trolley system we have, there are no plans to further expand the current system.

pune wrote:

And I did see that in the entire time you never talked about the health issues which I had shared above. Completely silent on that topic.

I'm not interested in the health aspects of the discussion, not interested in the environmental aspects of the discussion either - you can butt heads on those topics with others. My only point is that right now, EVs are not for everyone , despite what EV advocates believe.

pune wrote:

This actually tells the reverse -

https://emc-mec.ca/new/byds-electric-ca ... in-quebec/

Tells the reverse of what? That people aren't lining up to buy Chinese built EVs? Transport Canada approved one company and one model so far, and one taxi company is interested in it. Transport Canada also approved their buses almost 10 years ago and bus agencies here aren't replacing their fleets with them.

pune wrote:

And this tells that the rise in EV adoption in Canada is on the rise.

https://electricautonomy.ca/2021/07/27/ ... a-q1-2021/

In fact, seems the below site/resource is a good idea and barometer to know what is happening in Canada as far as EV adoption goes.

https://electricautonomy.ca/

I already provided those numbers above. You won't go from one and a half percent BEVs to BEVs in every second driveway within a couple of years, it just doesn't happen that way. Sorry.

I have seen how short the timespan is from «everyone» arguing against EVs being close to taking over, to pretty much the same «everyone» buying EVs themselves.
You don’t seem to even start to fathom how fast and swift this change will be. But I do, because I have seen it with my own eyes.

Pure EVs had 77,5% of sales in my country last month.
The is EXCLUDING hybrids.

I grew up with fossils just like you, I live in a cold country, with long bad roads and thin infrastructure just like you. I am talking to you basically from the future, but you seem kinda actively opposing the obvious.
You are welcone to, of course, it is just hard to see what you’ll achieve trying to convince those already living in the future, that the future won’t happen.

ACDC8 wrote:

pune wrote:

If you had shared the country, then we could have tracked that and know the statistics overtime and share the same. From what is being seen, there is both push and pull by people for EV adoption. Now if a country/province doesn't do battery charging services, that is on them. This is what China did it in one city and they have been replicating that model in other Chinese cities too. If the Chinese can do it, why not others ???

It is a straightforward question.

Not every Country is in the same spot as others are. Infrastructure costs money and takes time to build, doesn't happen overnight and has many aspects to overcome such as geography and current levels of infrastructure. Canada isn't China, we don't build superstructures in two days, it takes a lot longer to go through all formal processes.

pune wrote:

And I did see that in the entire time you never talked about the health issues which I had shared above. Completely silent on that topic.

I'm not interested in the health aspects of the discussion, not interested in the environmental aspects of the discussion either - you can butt heads on those topics with others. My only point is that right now, EVs are not for everyone , despite what EV advocates believe.

pune wrote:

This actually tells the reverse -

https://emc-mec.ca/new/byds-electric-ca ... in-quebec/

Tells the reverse of what? That people aren't lining up to buy Chinese built EVs? Transport Canada approved one company and one model so far, and one taxi company is interested in it. Transport Canada also approved their buses almost 10 years ago and bus agencies here aren't replacing their fleets with them.

pune wrote:

And this tells that the rise in EV adoption in Canada is on the rise.

https://electricautonomy.ca/2021/07/27/ ... a-q1-2021/

In fact, seems the below site/resource is a good idea and barometer to know what is happening in Canada as far as EV adoption goes.

https://electricautonomy.ca/

I already provided those numbers above. You won't go from one and a half percent BEVs to BEVs in every second driveway within a couple of years, it just doesn't happen that way. Sorry.

M564038 wrote:

I have seen how short the timespan is from «everyone» arguing against EVs being close to taking over, to pretty much the same «everyone» buying EVs themselves.
You don’t seem to even start to fathom how fast and swift this change will be. But I do, because I have seen it with my own eyes.

Pure EVs had 77,5% of sales in my country last month.
The is EXCLUDING hybrids.

I grew up with fossils just like you, I live in a cold country, with long bad roads and thin infrastructure just like you. I am talking to you basically from the future, but you seem kinda actively opposing the obvious.
You are welcone to, of course, it is just hard to see what you’ll achieve trying to convince those already living in the future, that the future won’t happen.

I've lived half my life in Europe, I'm quite aware how different Canada, geographically, infrastructure, politically and personal mentality, is to various countries in Europe. Take reusable shopping bags for instance, my parents have been using those in Europe since the 50s, here, 70 years later, its still a fight to get people to use them. EVs, car sharing, public transportation, same thing - you and I live in two completely different worlds of reality. One day, I'm sure that 77.5% of our car sales will be EV as well, but we are years off from hitting that number.

But thanks for your thoughts

Just saw this - https://insideevs.com/news/534931/the-f ... worldwide/

The interesting bit is not who is No.1 but who is No.2

The Wuling hongguang mini ev is gonna come out in China in next couple of months and eat its older model, it will have twice the battery range, 20% larger than the earlier model and sell at the same price in China. In Europe they would be selling it at around 10k USD or something around that range.

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

Somebody who was asking for low-cost just a couple of days back should have a look at this and keep an eye on it.

pune wrote:

Just saw this - https://insideevs.com/news/534931/the-f ... worldwide/

The interesting bit is not who is No.1 but who is No.2

The Wuling hongguang mini ev is gonna come out in China in next couple of months and eat its older model, it will have twice the battery range, 20% larger than the earlier model and sell at the same price in China. In Europe they would be selling it at around 10k USD or something around that range.

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

Somebody who was asking for low-cost just a couple of days back should have a look at this and keep an eye on it.

@Aesma for you ^

https://electrek.co/2021/10/05/egeb-kan ... its-going/

The good news seems to be just coming.

M564038 wrote:

I have seen how short the timespan is from «everyone» arguing against EVs being close to taking over, to pretty much the same «everyone» buying EVs themselves.
You don’t seem to even start to fathom how fast and swift this change will be. But I do, because I have seen it with my own eyes.

Pure EVs had 77,5% of sales in my country last month.
The is EXCLUDING hybrids.

I grew up with fossils just like you, I live in a cold country, with long bad roads and thin infrastructure just like you. I am talking to you basically from the future, but you seem kinda actively opposing the obvious.
You are welcone to, of course, it is just hard to see what you’ll achieve trying to convince those already living in the future, that the future won’t happen.

ACDC8 wrote:

pune wrote:

If you had shared the country, then we could have tracked that and know the statistics overtime and share the same. From what is being seen, there is both push and pull by people for EV adoption. Now if a country/province doesn't do battery charging services, that is on them. This is what China did it in one city and they have been replicating that model in other Chinese cities too. If the Chinese can do it, why not others ???

It is a straightforward question.

Not every Country is in the same spot as others are. Infrastructure costs money and takes time to build, doesn't happen overnight and has many aspects to overcome such as geography and current levels of infrastructure. Canada isn't China, we don't build superstructures in two days, it takes a lot longer to go through all formal processes.

pune wrote:

And I did see that in the entire time you never talked about the health issues which I had shared above. Completely silent on that topic.

I'm not interested in the health aspects of the discussion, not interested in the environmental aspects of the discussion either - you can butt heads on those topics with others. My only point is that right now, EVs are not for everyone , despite what EV advocates believe.

pune wrote:

This actually tells the reverse -

https://emc-mec.ca/new/byds-electric-ca ... in-quebec/

Tells the reverse of what? That people aren't lining up to buy Chinese built EVs? Transport Canada approved one company and one model so far, and one taxi company is interested in it. Transport Canada also approved their buses almost 10 years ago and bus agencies here aren't replacing their fleets with them.

pune wrote:

And this tells that the rise in EV adoption in Canada is on the rise.

https://electricautonomy.ca/2021/07/27/ ... a-q1-2021/

In fact, seems the below site/resource is a good idea and barometer to know what is happening in Canada as far as EV adoption goes.

https://electricautonomy.ca/

I already provided those numbers above. You won't go from one and a half percent BEVs to BEVs in every second driveway within a couple of years, it just doesn't happen that way. Sorry.

A country that heavily subsidizes EV with money made from oil extraction. A country that doesn’t have 800 km drives.

pune wrote:

Just saw this - https://insideevs.com/news/534931/the-f ... worldwide/

The interesting bit is not who is No.1 but who is No.2

The Wuling hongguang mini ev is gonna come out in China in next couple of months and eat its older model, it will have twice the battery range, 20% larger than the earlier model and sell at the same price in China. In Europe they would be selling it at around 10k USD or something around that range.

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

Somebody who was asking for low-cost just a couple of days back should have a look at this and keep an eye on it.

That’s not car, it’s an enclosed golf cart. I’d put shotgun scabbards on the sides and use it for clay target shooting.

Neither of those statements are true.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

M564038 wrote:

I have seen how short the timespan is from «everyone» arguing against EVs being close to taking over, to pretty much the same «everyone» buying EVs themselves.
You don’t seem to even start to fathom how fast and swift this change will be. But I do, because I have seen it with my own eyes.

Pure EVs had 77,5% of sales in my country last month.
The is EXCLUDING hybrids.

I grew up with fossils just like you, I live in a cold country, with long bad roads and thin infrastructure just like you. I am talking to you basically from the future, but you seem kinda actively opposing the obvious.
You are welcone to, of course, it is just hard to see what you’ll achieve trying to convince those already living in the future, that the future won’t happen.

ACDC8 wrote:

Not every Country is in the same spot as others are. Infrastructure costs money and takes time to build, doesn't happen overnight and has many aspects to overcome such as geography and current levels of infrastructure. Canada isn't China, we don't build superstructures in two days, it takes a lot longer to go through all formal processes.


I'm not interested in the health aspects of the discussion, not interested in the environmental aspects of the discussion either - you can butt heads on those topics with others. My only point is that right now, EVs are not for everyone , despite what EV advocates believe.

Tells the reverse of what? That people aren't lining up to buy Chinese built EVs? Transport Canada approved one company and one model so far, and one taxi company is interested in it. Transport Canada also approved their buses almost 10 years ago and bus agencies here aren't replacing their fleets with them.

I already provided those numbers above. You won't go from one and a half percent BEVs to BEVs in every second driveway within a couple of years, it just doesn't happen that way. Sorry.

A country that heavily subsidizes EV with money made from oil extraction. A country that doesn’t have 800 km drives.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

M564038 wrote:

I have seen how short the timespan is from «everyone» arguing against EVs being close to taking over, to pretty much the same «everyone» buying EVs themselves.
You don’t seem to even start to fathom how fast and swift this change will be. But I do, because I have seen it with my own eyes.

Pure EVs had 77,5% of sales in my country last month.
The is EXCLUDING hybrids.

I grew up with fossils just like you, I live in a cold country, with long bad roads and thin infrastructure just like you. I am talking to you basically from the future, but you seem kinda actively opposing the obvious.
You are welcone to, of course, it is just hard to see what you’ll achieve trying to convince those already living in the future, that the future won’t happen.

ACDC8 wrote:

Not every Country is in the same spot as others are. Infrastructure costs money and takes time to build, doesn't happen overnight and has many aspects to overcome such as geography and current levels of infrastructure. Canada isn't China, we don't build superstructures in two days, it takes a lot longer to go through all formal processes.


I'm not interested in the health aspects of the discussion, not interested in the environmental aspects of the discussion either - you can butt heads on those topics with others. My only point is that right now, EVs are not for everyone , despite what EV advocates believe.

Tells the reverse of what? That people aren't lining up to buy Chinese built EVs? Transport Canada approved one company and one model so far, and one taxi company is interested in it. Transport Canada also approved their buses almost 10 years ago and bus agencies here aren't replacing their fleets with them.

I already provided those numbers above. You won't go from one and a half percent BEVs to BEVs in every second driveway within a couple of years, it just doesn't happen that way. Sorry.

A country that heavily subsidizes EV with money made from oil extraction. A country that doesn’t have 800 km drives.

At least tell something which has some iota of truth in it. Here is the fossil fuel industry fuel subsidies in Canada - https://www.iisd.org/articles/unpacking ... sidies-faq

Fossil fuel subsidies in U.S. alone 600 billion dollars plus. https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-s ... etal-costs

So globally the fossil fuel subsidy would be few trillions of dollars. And this is after a century of funding, investment etc.in gas cars.

First tackle the above then you can talk about what is done or not in the EV space. So much misinformation.

There are two documentaries which shows the truth ' Who killed the electric car' 2006 and 'Revenge of the elctric car' 2011.

https://www.amazon.com/Who-Killed-Elect ... B087GTS4Z8

https://www.amazon.com/Revenge-Electric ... 010M9698U/

Both will be eye-openers to you.

M564038 wrote:

Neither of those statements are true.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

M564038 wrote:

I have seen how short the timespan is from «everyone» arguing against EVs being close to taking over, to pretty much the same «everyone» buying EVs themselves.
You don’t seem to even start to fathom how fast and swift this change will be. But I do, because I have seen it with my own eyes.

Pure EVs had 77,5% of sales in my country last month.
The is EXCLUDING hybrids.

I grew up with fossils just like you, I live in a cold country, with long bad roads and thin infrastructure just like you. I am talking to you basically from the future, but you seem kinda actively opposing the obvious.
You are welcone to, of course, it is just hard to see what you’ll achieve trying to convince those already living in the future, that the future won’t happen.

A country that heavily subsidizes EV with money made from oil extraction. A country that doesn’t have 800 km drives.

Well, what say you.

https://cleantechnica.com/2020/01/28/th ... e-success/

How isn’t Equinor, being state owned not a major of government revenue to pay those subsidies?

pune wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

M564038 wrote:

I have seen how short the timespan is from «everyone» arguing against EVs being close to taking over, to pretty much the same «everyone» buying EVs themselves.
You don’t seem to even start to fathom how fast and swift this change will be. But I do, because I have seen it with my own eyes.

Pure EVs had 77,5% of sales in my country last month.
The is EXCLUDING hybrids.

I grew up with fossils just like you, I live in a cold country, with long bad roads and thin infrastructure just like you. I am talking to you basically from the future, but you seem kinda actively opposing the obvious.
You are welcone to, of course, it is just hard to see what you’ll achieve trying to convince those already living in the future, that the future won’t happen.

A country that heavily subsidizes EV with money made from oil extraction. A country that doesn’t have 800 km drives.

At least tell something which has some iota of truth in it. Here is the fossil fuel industry fuel subsidies in Canada - https://www.iisd.org/articles/unpacking ... sidies-faq

Fossil fuel subsidies in U.S. alone 600 billion dollars plus. https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-s ... etal-costs

So globally the fossil fuel subsidy would be few trillions of dollars. And this is after a century of funding, investment etc.in gas cars.

First tackle the above then you can talk about what is done or not in the EV space. So much misinformation.

The link showed $20 billion in subsidies which are really normal tax accounting—depreciation, investment credits. There’s no way the USG is spending 1/7th of its budget on subsidizing oil. Negative externalities are not government subsidies. Is depreciation at a auto maker a subsidy? Why isn’t it a cost of goods sold and deductible to arrive at a gross profit? We don’t base taxes on top line revenue. EESI is hardly neutral and is pushing an anti-petroleum, anti-modern economy agenda.

Try the US EIA, which shows they’ve reduced subsidies by half.

https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

M564038 wrote:

Neither of those statements are true.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

A country that heavily subsidizes EV with money made from oil extraction. A country that doesn’t have 800 km drives.

Well, what say you.

https://cleantechnica.com/2020/01/28/th ... e-success/

How isn’t Equinor, being state owned not a major of government revenue to pay those subsidies?

You are forgetting that -

a. Most countries have greenhouse gas emissions commitments to make sure earth doesn't become more warm.

http://pacific.scoop.co.nz/2021/10/paci ... ree-world/

Unless of course, you don't believe that humans are responsible for this mess.

b, The second being carbon credits, They are now exchanges for it. https://ctxglobal.com/

The reasons that it is being subsidized is known to all unless you have blindfolds.

EIA has been known to be in bed with industry. They never lift a finger when anything goes wrong, especially pollution related matters. It is an industry lobbying body.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/maga ... tmare.html

M564038 wrote:

No reason to make fossil cars after 2025.
EVs have currently passed fossils in capability and quality, it is now only a question of production capability.

There are a few issues with that.

1. ICE engines in the industrial sector (diggers, backhoes, etc,.) aren't viable in electric, and that sector is headed towards ICE engines running on hydrogen. Therefore, there will be a significant development of hydrogen fueling stations and hydrogen production.

2. The infrastructure will be nowhere near ready to make the switch in most of the world by 2025

3. The ecological issues with the production and disposal of batteries. It can be swept under the rug for only so long, but it is a huge stain on the electric car industry and can't be ignored forever. Not to mention that most of the energy needed to produce the electricity to run electric vehicles is not green energy. Once we go all green and nuclear energy, then in makes sense from the environmental perspective.

4. We can keep ICE engines, as they don't require much modification to their design to burn hydrogen instead of petrol/diesel. The cost of these vehicles will be negligibly higher than standard ICE engines, unlike electric.

5. Hydrogen fuel cell technology is also here, and a viable and easier implementation of infrastructure is necessary as compared to electric. Hydrogen filling spots can be added to most petrol stations.

6. So if we really want to go green, we can keep the ICE engines burning hydrogen instead of petrol, it's cheaper, easier and quicker to implement, and more environmentally friendly than pure electric.

7. Regardless, the future, or the near future anyhow, will NOT be pure electric, but most likely split between traditional ICE's, Hydrogen ICE's and Electric. Politicians who think up these outlandish ideas don't have their heads firmly screwed into reality.

Redd, except point #1 and #2 which are somewhat connected to reality, those are all completely false, and just the same old right wing/oil lonby talking points.

Redd wrote:

M564038 wrote:

No reason to make fossil cars after 2025.
EVs have currently passed fossils in capability and quality, it is now only a question of production capability.

There are a few issues with that.

1. ICE engines in the industrial sector (diggers, backhoes, etc,.) aren't viable in electric, and that sector is headed towards ICE engines running on hydrogen. Therefore, there will be a significant development of hydrogen fueling stations and hydrogen production.

2. The infrastructure will be nowhere near ready to make the switch in most of the world by 2025

3. The ecological issues with the production and disposal of batteries. It can be swept under the rug for only so long, but it is a huge stain on the electric car industry and can't be ignored forever. Not to mention that most of the energy needed to produce the electricity to run electric vehicles is not green energy. Once we go all green and nuclear energy, then in makes sense from the environmental perspective.

4. We can keep ICE engines, as they don't require much modification to their design to burn hydrogen instead of petrol/diesel. The cost of these vehicles will be negligibly higher than standard ICE engines, unlike electric.

5. Hydrogen fuel cell technology is also here, and a viable and easier implementation of infrastructure is necessary as compared to electric. Hydrogen filling spots can be added to most petrol stations.

6. So if we really want to go green, we can keep the ICE engines burning hydrogen instead of petrol, it's cheaper, easier and quicker to implement, and more environmentally friendly than pure electric.

7. Regardless, the future, or the near future anyhow, will NOT be pure electric, but most likely split between traditional ICE's, Hydrogen ICE's and Electric. Politicians who think up these outlandish ideas don't have their heads firmly screwed into reality.

M564038 wrote:

Redd, except point #1 and #2 which are somewhat connected to reality, those are all completely false, and just the same old right wing/oil lonby talking points.

Redd wrote:

M564038 wrote:

No reason to make fossil cars after 2025.
EVs have currently passed fossils in capability and quality, it is now only a question of production capability.

What ya you talking about Willis? I'm seriously a little confused, have you Americans been so handicapped by politics that talking about technical issues is now right wing?Also, no they are not false. Also, if you want to say that someone's idea or concept is false, as an even moderately competent conversationalist the onus is on you to explain why you believe so, even if you're an authority on the subject, and by the way you express your idea's I'm willing to wager you're not.

Hydrogen powered internal combustion engines are right wing 0_o?

I thought the common goal here was to achieve zero emissions in the most efficient way possible.

I think you have stuff confused.
You are the one making extraordinary claims claiming extraordinary proof.

You are also not discussing technical issues, you are repeating talking points from people with vested interest in hindering the electrification.

Redd wrote:

M564038 wrote:

Redd, except point #1 and #2 which are somewhat connected to reality, those are all completely false, and just the same old right wing/oil lonby talking points.

Redd wrote:

What ya you talking about Willis? I'm seriously a little confused, have you Americans been so handicapped by politics that talking about technical issues is now right wing?Also, no they are not false. Also, if you want to say that someone's idea or concept is false, as an even moderately competent conversationalist the onus is on you to explain why you believe so, even if you're an authority on the subject, and by the way you express your idea's I'm willing to wager you're not.

Hydrogen powered internal combustion engines are right wing 0_o?

I thought the common goal here was to achieve zero emissions in the most efficient way possible.

As your own link shows (it is full of errors, btw. but that part is right):
There are Zero subsidies on EVs in this country.
There are taxes paid on Jurassic cars to compensate for their emissions, that aren’t paid on EVs. So yes, there are incentives, but not subsidies. Zero. Nothing.
(Equinor, where would they enter into this, exactly? Lol. )

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

pune wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

A country that heavily subsidizes EV with money made from oil extraction. A country that doesn’t have 800 km drives.

At least tell something which has some iota of truth in it. Here is the fossil fuel industry fuel subsidies in Canada - https://www.iisd.org/articles/unpacking ... sidies-faq

Fossil fuel subsidies in U.S. alone 600 billion dollars plus. https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-s ... etal-costs

So globally the fossil fuel subsidy would be few trillions of dollars. And this is after a century of funding, investment etc.in gas cars.

First tackle the above then you can talk about what is done or not in the EV space. So much misinformation.

The link showed $20 billion in subsidies which are really normal tax accounting—depreciation, investment credits. There’s no way the USG is spending 1/7th of its budget on subsidizing oil. Negative externalities are not government subsidies. Is depreciation at a auto maker a subsidy? Why isn’t it a cost of goods sold and deductible to arrive at a gross profit? We don’t base taxes on top line revenue. EESI is hardly neutral and is pushing an anti-petroleum, anti-modern economy agenda.

Try the US EIA, which shows they’ve reduced subsidies by half.

https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/

M564038 wrote:

As your own link shows (it is full of errors, btw. but that part is right):
There are Zero subsidies on EVs in this country.
There are taxes paid on Jurassic cars to compensate for their emissions, that aren’t paid on EVs. So yes, there are incentives, but not subsidies. Zero. Nothing.
(Equinor, where would they enter into this, exactly? Lol. )

And to make up for the shortfall, sounds like Norway is gonna slap premium EVs with a 25% luxury tax. Not surprising though, once you get enough people into EVs, the taxman will come for his pound of flesh.

BC has lots of subsidies and perks for EVs, "free" charging, single occupant EVs can use the HOV lane - but thats all coming to an end, charging rates are starting to be implemented. As far as subsidies go, we can get up to a $4000 rebate off the purchase price of a new EV - ironically, when the first set of rebates expired a couple of years ago, EV sales tanked and in order to get them to pick up again, they had to reintroduce the rebate program.

Just a brief summary on how EVs and the infrastructure just aren't where they need to be in the Canadian real world:

https://driving.ca/reviews/road-trip/ar ... tage-trips

I'm sure someone will comment about some "statistics" they found online and "driving profiles"

ACDC8 wrote:

Just a brief summary on how EVs and the infrastructure just aren't where they need to be in the Canadian real world:

https://driving.ca/reviews/road-trip/ar ... tage-trips

I'm sure someone will comment about some "statistics" they found online and "driving profiles"

If you think Canada being left behind is a good thing, then I'm not gonna stop you.

Meanwhile, BYD and these are worldwide figures -

https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/st ... -36390756/

Just let me know how this is not explosive -

Up 90.5% YoY and 18.7% MoM.

The numbers speak for themselves.

The idea of clinging on to the past coincides with a specific thinking -

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ri ... 32008.html

Also this - https://www.investors.com/news/chinese- ... -li-xpeng/

pune wrote:

If you think Canada being left behind is a good thing, then I'm not gonna stop you.

I never said it was. I just find it amusing that just because something is a certain way in your part of the world, it doesn't always apply to other parts of the world.

The City of Vancouver is set to implement a new parking permit tax on gas guzzler vehicles that will cost owners upwards of $1000 a year, I can assure you that folks here won't be trading their G Wagons in for a Tesla let alone a BYD.

Just like me, if I were to buy a Toyota Prius Prime, I could get a $4000 rebate which would make it only about $4000 more than a Corolla, I'd still take the Corolla over the Prime because I would not recoup that $4000 in fuel costs and it doesn't come in a manual transmission - and I'm not the only one who thinks like that, which is why EVs here have a very long hill to climb - and that rebate, is the only reason why EVs are selling here right now. The rebates expired a couple of years ago, sales tanked so bad that the Government had no choice but to reintroduce them to get people to buy EVs.

Prius sales in Canada last year was 6400 and Corolla was 37000, while both models are seeing quite a drop in sales, due to most buyers moving into the Rav4 which of hybrids only make up about 20% of sales.

Edited to add: Just read an update on the proposed gas guzzler parking tax in Vancouver - its been axed, so even more incentive for people to keep their current ICE vehicles.

Partly true.
There might be political support to re-introduce regular normal sales tax for EVs on amounts above $65,000.

Other car specific taxes, introduced as incentives to use fossil cars less, are not inteoduced on EVs.

ACDC8 wrote:

M564038 wrote:

As your own link shows (it is full of errors, btw. but that part is right):
There are Zero subsidies on EVs in this country.
There are taxes paid on Jurassic cars to compensate for their emissions, that aren’t paid on EVs. So yes, there are incentives, but not subsidies. Zero. Nothing.
(Equinor, where would they enter into this, exactly? Lol. )

And to make up for the shortfall, sounds like Norway is gonna slap premium EVs with a 25% luxury tax. Not surprising though, once you get enough people into EVs, the taxman will come for his pound of flesh.

BC has lots of subsidies and perks for EVs, "free" charging, single occupant EVs can use the HOV lane - but thats all coming to an end, charging rates are starting to be implemented. As far as subsidies go, we can get up to a $4000 rebate off the purchase price of a new EV - ironically, when the first set of rebates expired a couple of years ago, EV sales tanked and in order to get them to pick up again, they had to reintroduce the rebate program.

M564038 wrote:

I think you have stuff confused.
You are the one making extraordinary claims claiming extraordinary proof.

You are also not discussing technical issues, you are repeating talking points from people with vested interest in hindering the electrification.

Redd wrote:

M564038 wrote:

Redd, except point #1 and #2 which are somewhat connected to reality, those are all completely false, and just the same old right wing/oil lonby talking points.

What ya you talking about Willis? I'm seriously a little confused, have you Americans been so handicapped by politics that talking about technical issues is now right wing?Also, no they are not false. Also, if you want to say that someone's idea or concept is false, as an even moderately competent conversationalist the onus is on you to explain why you believe so, even if you're an authority on the subject, and by the way you express your idea's I'm willing to wager you're not.

Hydrogen powered internal combustion engines are right wing 0_o?

I thought the common goal here was to achieve zero emissions in the most efficient way possible.

Re-read my points. These are technical challenges and issues that need to be overcome, or there are simpler and better solutions on the table. It's not political in any way, and I encourage you to refute points 3 to 5 and present a counter as to why you disagree. If I'm off on something, I'll be glad to learn something new and change my mind. That's the point of conversation and dialog. I'll also add that I own an electric car, so I also have some personal experience in the matter of practicality.

Just stating something is false and not giving any reasons why you think so, is somewhat infantile. And it boggles my mind that you can think it's political.

Thank you for answering in a constructive manner!

I will be happy to refute those points, and I’ll get to it later today, although if you really want to learn, you might be better off rephrasing those points as questions and seek out reputable(important to be an extra notch critical here)and up to date sources that adresses them.
Such as «What is being done to increase sustainable manufacture of batteries?»
«Does EVs pollute more than ICE vehicles when using fossile power?»

«Energy efficiency in fuel cell vs battery electric cars»

Redd wrote:

M564038 wrote:

I think you have stuff confused.
You are the one making extraordinary claims claiming extraordinary proof.

You are also not discussing technical issues, you are repeating talking points from people with vested interest in hindering the electrification.

Redd wrote:

What ya you talking about Willis? I'm seriously a little confused, have you Americans been so handicapped by politics that talking about technical issues is now right wing?Also, no they are not false. Also, if you want to say that someone's idea or concept is false, as an even moderately competent conversationalist the onus is on you to explain why you believe so, even if you're an authority on the subject, and by the way you express your idea's I'm willing to wager you're not.

Hydrogen powered internal combustion engines are right wing 0_o?

I thought the common goal here was to achieve zero emissions in the most efficient way possible.

Re-read my points. These are technical challenges and issues that need to be overcome, or there are simpler and better solutions on the table. It's not political in any way, and I encourage you to refute points 3 to 5 and present a counter as to why you disagree. If I'm off on something, I'll be glad to learn something new and change my mind. That's the point of conversation and dialog. I'll also add that I own an electric car, so I also have some personal experience in the matter of practicality.

Just stating something is false and not giving any reasons why you think so, is somewhat infantile. And it boggles my mind that you can think it's political.

M564038 wrote:

No reason to make fossil cars after 2025.
EVs have currently passed fossils in capability and quality, it is now only a question of production capability.

You're having a laugh, where is the AWD station wagon (my preference over an SUV) that has a range of 1200km? there isn't one. And before you say nobody drives that far, I have many times. And as of today nobody makes an electric station wagon like my A6 Avant or the BMW 5 Series Touring, Mercedes E Class T Wagon or Volvo V90. Even in EV friendly Norway a BEV is a compromise, most people buy them because of the tax advantages they offer rather than the abilities they have.