Ev vehicles sask

[Robertbarlage]

You can be a smart ass and tell us. I am waiting

[jazz]

Part of me wants to correct all the misinformation and lies in this thread but it's not really worth the effort. Driving EV since 2017 and will never buy another ICE vehicle if there is an electric option.

Charging a tesla on a farm with 3 phase or solar panels, sure.

How many people live on farms?

The city grid is the bottleneck and its right at the house level. Even if a bunch of highlines are run into every city, there is not enough generation in the country to power EVs. So whats you solution for the generation? Canadas generation would need to triple. Thats a fact. Where would that come from? How long to get a dozen new hydro dams, nuke plants and thousands upon thousands of miles of new highline permitted? SMRs? Sure, but that tech is 20 yrs away from adoption and still doesnt solve the grid problem.

And the street level transformer upgrades? All buried in back yards and under sidewalks and pavements? Or should we re-pole the city streets like they do in 3rd world countries?

The only way EVs work in densely populated areas is if the residents agree to drive their EVs twice a week and take the bus the rest of the time. Maybe thats the plan anyway.

Went to Canadian tire the other day. Some chap charging his Tesla. Came out after 30 minutes. Guy still charging it.

[ALBERTAFARMER4]

Charging a tesla on a farm with 3 phase or solar panels, sure.

How many people live on farms?

The city grid is the bottleneck and its right at the house level. Even if a bunch of highlines are run into every city, there is not enough generation in the country to power EVs. So whats you solution for the generation? Canadas generation would need to triple. Thats a fact. Where would that come from? How long to get a dozen new hydro dams, nuke plants and thousands upon thousands of miles of new highline permitted? SMRs? Sure, but that tech is 20 yrs away from adoption and still doesnt solve the grid problem.

And the street level transformer upgrades? All buried in back yards and under sidewalks and pavements? Or should we re-pole the city streets like they do in 3rd world countries?

The only way EVs work in densely populated areas is if the residents agree to drive their EVs twice a week and take the bus the rest of the time. Maybe thats the plan anyway.

Went to Canadian tire the other day. Some chap charging his Tesla. Came out after 30 minutes. Guy still charging it.

Do people that live in the city have a roof? Does the sun hit the roof?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Part of me wants to correct all the misinformation and lies in this thread but it's not really worth the effort. Driving EV since 2017 and will never buy another ICE vehicle if there is an electric option.

You will get no arguments from me about the benefits or economics or utility or pleasure of driving an electric vehicle under the current scenario. But much like Chuck's solar panels, it works very well at very very low penetrations.
But when you attempt to scale that up, the cost of the infrastructure and the generation capacity will have to be born by the end users. Same with the cost of using the roads when that can no longer be shouldered by the majority of ice vehicles.

When all of those costs eventually get property attributed to the users, the only advantage remaining will be the slightly improved efficiency Uncle burning fossil fuels in a centralized generation facility versus in your car engine.

The Free Ride electric vehicles are enjoying will come to an end when you run out of other people's money. In this case other people's money is all the other users of the power grid and people payng fuel taxes. Once you price them out of the market and into an electric vehicle there will be no more other people's money.
Exact same thing will happen with Chuck's solar panels. Sorry, Chuck's fake solar panels.

[Spyguy]

Looks like they are getting scared.

For years, Ontario generated so much electrical power that it had to sell it, often at a loss, to neighbouring states and provinces. Now, the province’s ability to produce an adequate supply of reliable power is threatened by an increasing enthusiasm for eliminating natural gas plants that are critical to Ontario’s future.

STORY CONTINUES BELOW

An environmental group called the Ontario Clean Air Alliance is demanding that natural gas power generation be phased out by 2030. It’s a predictable stance for an environmental group, but the worrying thing is that the alliance’s wobbly plan to replace natural gas has been endorsed by 32 municipalities, representing about 60 per cent of Ontario’s population. Among them are Toronto, Hamilton, Ottawa, Mississauga and Windsor. The federal Liberal, NDP and Green parties all promised zero emissions electricity in last month’s election.

DISTROSCALE

Zero emissions electricity has to be taken seriously, not because it’s feasible in Ontario in this decade, but because it’s just the sort of simplistic idea that appeals to people who believe the planet will perish without just the right mix of government policies in Canada. These would be the same people who call for a future in which electricity powers all cars and home heating, but they want only their sort of electricity. That doesn’t include natural gas or emissions-free nuclear, which combined provide 62 per cent of Ontario’s generation capacity.

STORY CONTINUES BELOW

Ontario’s power generation sector is a curious target for environmentalists, given that it is 94 per cent emissions free and produces only three per cent of the province’s greenhouse gas emissions. Ontario produces 81 per cent fewer carbon emissions per kilowatt hour than the rest of Canada. That’s due to the phase-out of coal plants under the former Liberal government. That move reduced the power sector’s emissions from 21 per cent of the overall amount, even if Ontarians did pay a steep premium for every part of it.

Some of that progress will be lost over this decade because the aging Pickering nuclear reactor is being phased out, reducing generation capacity by 14 per cent. Other reactors are up for refurbishment, meaning the province will have to rely more on natural gas for power generation. As a result, electricity system emissions will rise from an average of 4.4 megatonnes to between 10.9 and 12.2 megatonnes in 2030, the province’s Independent Electricity System operator estimates. That’s still only one-third what they were in 2005.

STORY CONTINUES BELOW

The increasing reliance on gas has got the environmental group fired up, but its position is a bit complicated. It backed the coal conversion, naturally, but now it opposes the gas plants that support intermittent wind and solar power. It also opposes nuclear on the grounds of cost and safety.

One has to hand it to the clean air alliance. Lobbying municipalities to pressure for an end to natural gas power generation was a clever move. The average municipal politician is quick to rally to a good-sounding cause and knows squat about power generation.

The municipal pressure was sufficient for the IESO, the agency that plans and operates Ontario’s power system, to do a detailed evaluation of the phase-out plan. Its report last week was a rare but welcome combination of facts, figures and common sense.

STORY CONTINUES BELOW

If gas plants were shut down by 2030, as the environmental group and myriad city councillors propose, there would be some pretty noticeable side effects. Those would include the need to spend $27 billion on alternative generation and transmission lines, plus additional operating costs of $5.7 billion a year, which would push the average homeowner’s bill up $100 a month. Oh, and there would also be rolling blackouts without the reliable natural gas power.

None of that is slowing down the clean air alliance, which accuses the IESO of trying to scare the public. Its own plan relies on Quebec investing in wind and solar so that it can sell its own hydro power to Ontario, plus an emerging idea to draw power from electric car batteries.

STORY CONTINUES BELOW

Despite the strong critique from the IESO, Energy Minister Todd Smith was diplomatic in his response. He wants the agency to develop a zero-emissions electricity plan that keeps cost in mind and won’t take place until after 2030.

Before they get too keen on phasing out gas plants, Ontario politicians might want to consider the situation in Europe. Countries there enthusiastically embraced wind and solar but then made the mistake of shutting down nuclear plants and not replacing coal power with sufficient natural gas. Now they find themselves short of power and the price is increasing sharply.

Ontario has avoided that fate, so far, but it’s never too late to do the wrong thing.

[WiltonRanch]

For years, Ontario generated so much electrical power that it had to sell it, often at a loss, to neighbouring states and provinces. Now, the province’s ability to produce an adequate supply of reliable power is threatened by an increasing enthusiasm for eliminating natural gas plants that are critical to Ontario’s future.

STORY CONTINUES BELOW

An environmental group called the Ontario Clean Air Alliance is demanding that natural gas power generation be phased out by 2030. It’s a predictable stance for an environmental group, but the worrying thing is that the alliance’s wobbly plan to replace natural gas has been endorsed by 32 municipalities, representing about 60 per cent of Ontario’s population. Among them are Toronto, Hamilton, Ottawa, Mississauga and Windsor. The federal Liberal, NDP and Green parties all promised zero emissions electricity in last month’s election.

DISTROSCALE

Zero emissions electricity has to be taken seriously, not because it’s feasible in Ontario in this decade, but because it’s just the sort of simplistic idea that appeals to people who believe the planet will perish without just the right mix of government policies in Canada. These would be the same people who call for a future in which electricity powers all cars and home heating, but they want only their sort of electricity. That doesn’t include natural gas or emissions-free nuclear, which combined provide 62 per cent of Ontario’s generation capacity.

STORY CONTINUES BELOW

Ontario’s power generation sector is a curious target for environmentalists, given that it is 94 per cent emissions free and produces only three per cent of the province’s greenhouse gas emissions. Ontario produces 81 per cent fewer carbon emissions per kilowatt hour than the rest of Canada. That’s due to the phase-out of coal plants under the former Liberal government. That move reduced the power sector’s emissions from 21 per cent of the overall amount, even if Ontarians did pay a steep premium for every part of it.

Some of that progress will be lost over this decade because the aging Pickering nuclear reactor is being phased out, reducing generation capacity by 14 per cent. Other reactors are up for refurbishment, meaning the province will have to rely more on natural gas for power generation. As a result, electricity system emissions will rise from an average of 4.4 megatonnes to between 10.9 and 12.2 megatonnes in 2030, the province’s Independent Electricity System operator estimates. That’s still only one-third what they were in 2005.

STORY CONTINUES BELOW

The increasing reliance on gas has got the environmental group fired up, but its position is a bit complicated. It backed the coal conversion, naturally, but now it opposes the gas plants that support intermittent wind and solar power. It also opposes nuclear on the grounds of cost and safety.

One has to hand it to the clean air alliance. Lobbying municipalities to pressure for an end to natural gas power generation was a clever move. The average municipal politician is quick to rally to a good-sounding cause and knows squat about power generation.

The municipal pressure was sufficient for the IESO, the agency that plans and operates Ontario’s power system, to do a detailed evaluation of the phase-out plan. Its report last week was a rare but welcome combination of facts, figures and common sense.

STORY CONTINUES BELOW

If gas plants were shut down by 2030, as the environmental group and myriad city councillors propose, there would be some pretty noticeable side effects. Those would include the need to spend $27 billion on alternative generation and transmission lines, plus additional operating costs of $5.7 billion a year, which would push the average homeowner’s bill up $100 a month. Oh, and there would also be rolling blackouts without the reliable natural gas power.

None of that is slowing down the clean air alliance, which accuses the IESO of trying to scare the public. Its own plan relies on Quebec investing in wind and solar so that it can sell its own hydro power to Ontario, plus an emerging idea to draw power from electric car batteries.

STORY CONTINUES BELOW

Despite the strong critique from the IESO, Energy Minister Todd Smith was diplomatic in his response. He wants the agency to develop a zero-emissions electricity plan that keeps cost in mind and won’t take place until after 2030.

Before they get too keen on phasing out gas plants, Ontario politicians might want to consider the situation in Europe. Countries there enthusiastically embraced wind and solar but then made the mistake of shutting down nuclear plants and not replacing coal power with sufficient natural gas. Now they find themselves short of power and the price is increasing sharply.

Ontario has avoided that fate, so far, but it’s never too late to do the wrong thing.

Dang it there you go with facts and details again. You’ll never placate terrorists or eco nuts. They won’t stop until everyone is dead.

[Guest]

Dang it there you go with facts and details again. You’ll never placate terrorists or eco nuts. They won’t stop until everyone is dead.

Or until their TV or video game won’t work because of rolling blackouts

[WiltonRanch]

Or until their TV or video game won’t work because of rolling blackouts

Won’t matter. Cult followers are brainwashed and there is no way you easily change their minds. Someone’s ears are burning.

[burnt]

Do people that live in the city have a roof? Does the sun hit the roof?

Umm, those in apartments? Maybe not so much?

And the sun certainly hits the roof - in the daytime, so, great if you're working graveyard shift...

Or maybe you were making a valiant attempt at sarcasm?

[Tucker]

I knew an electrician who worked at a mine. Used his knowledge and skills to convert a Fiero into a full plug in electric and used it to go to and from work every day. Plugged in at the mine and it was essentially free transportation for him. That was 20 years ago. Now EV owners are a little further out in the open and they have to pay a little for charging but still almost nothing for road use. When everybody uses an EV then lube up because you will finally pay your share and you will be no further ahead than an ICE driver now. Just like solar panels. You get a free (grid) battery now. Maggie Thatcher said it best. "The problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money"

[WiltonRanch]

I heard of one idea kicked around of having removable battery packs you exchange at gas stations for charged ones. Logistics of charging for some is impossible like parking on the street.

[shtferbrains]

My neighbor has panels on a couple of buildings in his yard.
They don't appear to be worth the trouble to climb up and clear the snow off in the winter.

[ALBERTAFARMER4]

Umm, those in apartments? Maybe not so much?

And the sun certainly hits the roof - in the daytime, so, great if you're working graveyard shift...

Or maybe you were making a valiant attempt at sarcasm?

That's why any place that vehicles are parked for the day will have a solar installation. If you want to charge your EV with solar that was produced during the day you will need a home battery. When you put solar energy directly into an EV it has zero consequence to grid capacity. You are going from panel to battery and excluding the grid completely.

[burnt]

That's why any place that vehicles are parked for the day will have a solar installation. If you want to charge your EV with solar that was produced during the day you will need a home battery. When you put solar energy directly into an EV it has zero consequence to grid capacity. You are going from panel to battery and excluding the grid completely.

Gotcha.

And the nicest part of your tidy scenario is that it displaces all the negatives - the human rights abuses, the dirty, irreversible environmental destruction necessary to create your self-indulgent, dream ride - far from your own pristine back yard.

The next time - and every time after - that you smugly plug your shiny Tesla in for a charge, or when your amazing G-force pins you back in the driver's seat, you remember that you are standing proudly on the backs of these Congolese children who made your dream possible by the sweat on their faces and the blisters on their little hands.


Yes indeed, you single-handedly saved the world, didn't you.

[ALBERTAFARMER4]

Gotcha.

And the nicest part of your tidy scenario is that it displaces all the negatives - the human rights abuses, the dirty, irreversible environmental destruction necessary to create your self-indulgent, dream ride - far from your own pristine back yard.

The next time - and every time after - that you smugly plug your shiny Tesla in for a charge, or when your amazing G-force pins you back in the driver's seat, you remember that you are standing proudly on the backs of these Congolese children who made your dream possible by the sweat on their faces and the blisters on their little hands.
[ATTACH]8929[/ATTACH]

Yes indeed, you single-handedly saved the world, didn't you.

Cool story bro. Here is a link to the 93 page sustainability report for Tesla in 2020. Skip to page 46.

https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/2020-tesla-impact-report.pdf