this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2023

35 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

9662 readers

1014 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 Sports

Hockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Toronto Blue Jays

Basketball

Toronto Raptors

Soccer

Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
Toronto FC

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

General:
- Canada Politics
- FairVote Canada
Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- Animal Protection Party of Canada
- NDP
By Province (alphabetical):
- BC Greens

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Ottawa expected to release promised EV sales regulations Tuesday (www.cbc.ca)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

35 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Sales targets meant to ensure automakers ramp up EV production to keep up with demand, says source

all 45 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[+] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (4 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

I'm wondering if that's what this legislation will do.

It's focused on ensuring that a target % of all cars a manufacturer sells be electric. And in order to do that, they need to get more people to choose to buy electric.

They can achieve that by raising the prices of their ICE vehicles and selling less overall volume, but the proportion of EVs would be higher. or the seemingly easier option would be to create more cheaper EV options that people are interested in buying.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Plus, making those budget cars would be a little lighter (less motors and electronics), require less precious metals (less electronics), and therefore be more a little more energy effecient as well as cheaper to maintain (less electronics to replace).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Fewer electronics to replace doesn't matter if we have no right to third party repairs. many EVs are locked down, so they have you over a barrel on replacement part pricing.

[+] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Most people can't afford $35K for a new car.

Fewer and fewer people can afford the lease or finance payments on a new car, period, and fewer people can afford homes where they can charge an EV, while landlords can max out the rent all they like without having to spend on frills like chargers.

Meanwhile, we're reducing taxes and shovelling grants at the rich to build housing that they won't build, that'll require people to buy cars that they can't afford because we aren't going to build that new housing in a way that's suited to public transit--which we aren't going to build anyway.

The housing/transport/fiscal-policy clusterfuck is fractally shortsighted: it looks shortsighted when you first look at, but it gets more and more shortsighted in new and interesting ways the closer you zoom in.

[+] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People buy those cars they can't or can barely afford because they have no other choice in the majority of Canadian cities due to car centric design.

[+] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They could all buy a Mitsubishi Mirage for under 18k if that was an issue.

The Mirage being $18K, and being almost the last subcompact standing, is a symptom of the issue.

Like house prices, car prices went bonkers over the last decade as manufacturers raised the floor chasing margin. At around the start of the last decade, we had the Mirage, Fit, Yaris, Versa, Accent, Rio, Spark, Sonic, Fiesta, City Golf, 500 and Mazda2. Of that group, almost all of them are gone, as are many from the next step up (Focus, Cruze, Caliber, the non-GTI Golf, etc). Interestingly, the platforms aren't gone, they've just been jacked two inches and covered in plastic cladding.

Why? Because cheap credit made it easier to get people into something more expensive.

The average price is indicative of a captive market, rather similar to what we're seeing in housing, and it's going to get nastier as OEMs do not want to see 1979 or 2008 again, where they're forced to make do with lower margins. We'll see "tax incentives" and lowering of interest rates before then, just like we're seeing with housing, because we've collectively made the decision that people with money must not, ever, lose money--and the more money you have, the more it must be protected--but people without money deserve to be ruthlessly exploited.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I saw used 2013 Honda Fits going for 17k in BC last week. Is that mirage still available??

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The fundamental problem is that battery powered EVs, or BEVs, need vast amounts of raw material when manufactured. That basically guarantees that BEVs are never going to be cost effective once you get past small and short-ranged cars. That ensures that BEVs are simply not going to be the main type of cars. They are really ideal for things like e-bikes or golf carts, not larger vehicles like SUVs or commercial vehicles.

In reality, society needs to focus on non-BEV forms of zero emissions transportation. Ideally, that means more mass transit or walkable neighborhoods. But for situations where the car is unavoidable, it is almost certain that we have to find a true replacement for conventional ICE cars. If not e-fuels, then something like hydrogen cars.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

We've still got to contend with the horrible environmental effects of tire dust - EV or ICE.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And the urban sprawl from car dependancy, the salting of the roads, stormwater run off from roads, the wasted urban space that is massive surface parking lots, and noise pollution from the tires. EVs solve very few problems related to cars.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's really the biggest issue that's unfortunately not at the forefront. Sure, EVs are much more energy efficient and therefore less polluting in the form of fossil fuel burn, but the way we travel is incredibly inefficient given the available technologies. Our country was literally built on the railroad, yet there is very little reasonable passenger rail alternatives in much of the country.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

EVs are much more energy efficient

Isn't the lifetime difference something like 30% better than ICE? It's definitely better, but it isn't significantly better.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Turns out bringing 3000+ pounds of steel with you everywhere you go is ineffecient regardless how it is powered.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I've heard cars described as metal overcoats. People slap them on for the slightest reason.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'll use my two, similar sized cars as an example (Subaru Outback and Hyundai Ioniq 5). Typical driving gets me around 8 L/100km in the Outback and 20 kWh/100km in the Ioniq. This NRCan site gives a conversion factor of 8.9 kWh/L of gasoline.

So, the Ioniq, at 20 kWh/100km is then about 72% more efficient than the Subaru at its equivalent 71.2 kWh/100km.

Even when considering lifetime emissions, EVs still have roughly 50% less emissions than ICE vehicles.

However, going back to my original point, person vehicles are still incredibly inefficient overall, given the potential alternatives.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Is there any notable development on that front?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

Trains? Trains are great - and buses produce a lot less tire dust per passenger.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Building communities that are walkable? I mean, we could try that, but it wouldn't make rich people richer.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

One crisis at a time PLEASE. Affordable EVs first, THEN flying cars.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Trains. Trains are the solution.

The answer has been right in front of us the entire time!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is the best summary I could come up with:

CBC News has learned that Ottawa will release final regulations it says will ensure that all new passenger cars sold in Canada by 2035 are zero-emission vehicles, a senior government source said.

The source — who was not authorized to speak publicly — said the new regulations are meant to ensure that automakers produce enough affordable zero-emissions vehicles to meet the demand.

"Instead of attempting to dictate what individuals have to purchase, we suggest that the government create the right set of circumstances to stimulate demand," said Tim Reuss of the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association.

The Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, which represents Ford, Stellantis and General Motors, said automakers are committed to electrifying their production.

According to the draft regulatory analysis, the policy will be challenging for "northern and remote communities" and it notes that the government "is continuing to evaluate measures that could help facilitate this transition."

"EVs are a big money saver for Canadian households," said Joanna Kyriazis, the director of public affairs for Clean Energy Canada.

The original article contains 893 words, the summary contains 157 words. Saved 82%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

I welcome this, but I feel we should have had this years ago for a 2025 zero emissions date. 2035 is a decade or really more too late. If many countries did this in the past, the entire EV I would have moved forward much faster and we would be in the final phases of gas engines now. Oh well. Better late than never though so good for Canada.

[+] [email protected] -6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Why... EVs are literally green washing while also being more dangerous because of the added weight. Can't we wait for a better alternative? I think hydrogen cars are already a better looking option, they fill up quickly and they don't require a brunch of rare minerals mined by exploited children. Unless they consider hydrogen as EVs which they are...

And even there, replacing ICE cars with EV cars will not change a thing in the long run. we need to ban cars altogether to solve the real environmental problems

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Yes a car free society should be the end goal but this will take a lot of time. We literally CANNOT wait for a better alternative, we needed to get rid of gas ten years ago.

Daily reminder that "EVs aren't a perfect solution yet" argument is what the oil industry is pushing, so they can maximise profits for an other decade at the detriment of all of us.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Or we could just go straight to building functional public transit and walkable neighbourhoods and skip the decades of EV car dependancy.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Maybe in the big cities in the East and BC. But out cities are so spread out and undense it would take a lot to change them, and no one has the will to.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

The majority of people need to travel within their city for most of their trips. Even small cities/towns should have walkable downtowns and basic public transit.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Saying we "cannot wait" just means we have to move faster with better alternatives. We cannot just settle on a impractical and ultimately doomed idea. The oil industry is the ultimate winner if we are stuck with BEVs. It just means millions of people will have zero options for transportation, eventually leading to a political situation where governments around the world will have allow the continued existence of fossil fuel cars.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There have been advancements in e-fuel, which is basically fuel made from the CO2 in the air. It is almost carbon-neutral (because 100% efficiency does not exist). It is not really close to being a thing because of cost, but even that has gone way down from a few years ago. I am not saying that this should be prioritized, but being able to keep the existing infrastructure would also help keep polution down (not having to rebuild an entire infrastructure from scratch)

BEVs are indeed not a perfect solution because they are simply not one rather they are a workaround. They go bad after 10 years and forces overconsumption and buying a new car when it would still suffice if it had a fuel engine. And they are made with permanent wearable parts so you cannot easily and cheaply replace the battery after its not enough for a small road trip.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unless they consider hydrogen as EVs which they are...

They do. It's EVs, low-emission, and no-emission vehicles.

Can't we wait for a better alternative?

Given the climate crisis, probably an irresponsible choice.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago

I don't think waiting a few years for a better solution that will not involve making children work to mine rare earth materials and that will also not involve having to entirely rebuild the fuel to charging infrastructure.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

If you can point me to a single hydrogen-charging station in my area, I would be impressed. As infrequent and underdeveloped as EV chargers are (assuming you aren't able to get a charger installed in your house), I haven't heard of a single hydrogen charger anywhere in the GTHA. Hell, I haven't even heard of a single hydrogen car on market that people are pursuing in any noticeable numbers. Li-battery cars at least have some modicum of infrastructure now where, in certain urban settings, it is entirely possible to drive an EV around, and I know they exist.

And there's no putting that genie back in the bottle. Reduce the number of cars, sure, I would love to see that happen, but outright banning them? It'll never happen.