Canada to go to all zero emission passenger vehicles by 2035

Status
Not open for further replies.

Monocrom

Flashaholic
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
20,001
Location
NYC
Our "genius" mayor wants to ban the sale of all new vehicles here in NYC, except EVs of course, by the same year. Sounds like an arbitrary one that politicians picked out of the air.
 

bykfixer

Flashaholic
Joined
Aug 9, 2015
Messages
20,416
Location
Dust in the Wind
What if America had said "we're going to have a man on the moon by 1970" and someone said "where you getting the rockets parts to do it?" and the answer was "China".... would the results have been the same?

I've never been a fan of Al Gore but way back when Iraq invaded Kuwait and America needed a bunch of dessert colored uniforms quickly he said "why are we getting our uniforms from China, not America?"

Follow the money.
IMG_2350.jpeg
 
Last edited:

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,505
Location
Flushing, NY
I actually hope China gets to the moon first in the new moon race. Then our astronauts will be able to order take out whenever they get there. "Large Kung Po chicken, wonton soup, fried dumplings, and house special lo mein delivered to the moonbase near Tycho crater". Way better than that stuff they squeeze out of tubes.
 

TPA

Enlightened
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
388
Location
Florida
Zero emissions my foot -- they're just shifting the exhaust from the tailpipe to the powerplant's smoke stack.

Most EVs are charged at night when wind and solar power are nil. Pumped storage is a joke. 1x 55 gallon drum of water has about as much potential energy as an AA battery. It's coal, oil, gas that really powers the EVs unless you're near hydro, and hydro has its own environmental impact.

Then there's the issue of the electrical grids and power plants. 2035 is ~10 years away. It takes at least 10 years to get the permitting to actually build a plant. In my area, no new plants are scheduled to be built. Then you have to upgrade the grid and that infrastructure as well. More amps = more wires and thicker wires needed. Larger transformers needed, etc.

While there's a place for EVs, they're not the holy grail they're touted as being.

I spent close to a year doing detailed research before buying my current car. Ultimately, buying my luxo-barge gas-powered car was FAR more environmentally-friendly than EVs would have been, cradle-to-grave, including the fuel it used. The real irony was having the US' own EPA tell me I couldn't get the car with a powertrain that got a legitimate 85MPG (not eMPG, real MPG) and insisted I get one with 28MPG, and the bureaucrat told me with a straight face that 28MPG was better(!) for the environment.
 

vicv

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 22, 2013
Messages
2,866
Location
Southern Ontario
Zero emissions my foot -- they're just shifting the exhaust from the tailpipe to the powerplant's smoke stack.

Most EVs are charged at night when wind and solar power are nil. Pumped storage is a joke. 1x 55 gallon drum of water has about as much potential energy as an AA battery. It's coal, oil, gas that really powers the EVs unless you're near hydro, and hydro has its own environmental impact.

Then there's the issue of the electrical grids and power plants. 2035 is ~10 years away. It takes at least 10 years to get the permitting to actually build a plant. In my area, no new plants are scheduled to be built. Then you have to upgrade the grid and that infrastructure as well. More amps = more wires and thicker wires needed. Larger transformers needed, etc.

While there's a place for EVs, they're not the holy grail they're touted as being.

I spent close to a year doing detailed research before buying my current car. Ultimately, buying my luxo-barge gas-powered car was FAR more environmentally-friendly than EVs would have been, cradle-to-grave, including the fuel it used. The real irony was having the US' own EPA tell me I couldn't get the car with a powertrain that got a legitimate 85MPG (not eMPG, real MPG) and insisted I get one with 28MPG, and the bureaucrat told me with a straight face that 28MPG was better(!) for the environment.
Some of what you're saying I do agree with. Except the plant instead of the tailpipe. While in a way you are correct, even a dirty coal plant is much, much cleaner per unit of fuel to energy out, as any ice engine. Engines are very bad for polluting. There are other issues with evs, like the metals required. But power generating is much more eco friendly than burning fuel in each vehicle
 
Last edited:

TPA

Enlightened
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
388
Location
Florida
Things may have changed since I bought my car 5 years ago (6 actually...took almost a year to get it made), but losses and inefficiencies of the grid still had a quality ICE coming out on top. I'd be interested to see the lay of the land today.

To see what was possible, here's a 2014 Mercedes E-Class, 74MPG in real-world usage:

My car, with it's 28 MPG EPA-approved powertrain...now gets 40-45MPG with some um..modifications. Same powertrain, catalytic converter and emissions equipment still in place, just a lot of software tweaks and optimization of the autopilot. The car seems to prefer colder weather, which is a shame with me living in Florida.

I also have some theories on how to improve ICE efficiency over and above what I've done with my car, but unfortunately don't have access to tools and equipment to build it. On paper, the maths work.
 
Last edited:

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,505
Location
Flushing, NY
Some of what you're saying I do agree with. Except the plant instead of the tailpipe. While I'm a way you are correct, even a dirty coal plant is much, much cleaner per unit of fuel to energy out, as any ice engine. Engines are very bad for polluting. There are other issues with evs, like the metals required. But power generating is much more eco friendly than burning fuel in each vehicle
Also, a coal or natural gas plant converts a much higher percentage of the energy in the fuel into useful work. A typical gas engine is at best ~25% efficient but that's only running at an optimal speed/power output. Over the entire driving cycle, it's much lower, like 15%. Power plants are much better. Even coal averages about 33%, while natural gas is around 45%. The most modern plants are >50% efficient.

Electrical distribution losses are around 5%. Charging efficiency of EVs averages in the 85% area. Motors now are 90+% efficient. So overall 0.95*0.85*0.90= ~73% of the energy from the power plant makes it to the wheels of the EV. Overall efficiency if you're using average coal plants is 0.33*0.73 = 24%, and 0.45*0.73 = 33% for natural gas.
 
Last edited:

TPA

Enlightened
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
388
Location
Florida
Also, a coal or natural gas plant converts a much higher percentage of the energy in the fuel into useful work. A typical gas engine is at best ~25% efficient but that's only running at an optimal speed/power output. Over the entire driving cycle, it's much lower, like 15%. Power plants are much better. Even coal averages about 33%, while natural gas is around 45%. The most modern plants are >50% efficient.
You forgot to include all of the losses of electrical transmission and conversion. Then there's the EV in and of itself. Charging losses, storage losses, and then conversion losses back to motion.

I did all of the calcs back when I bought my car, and at the time (perhaps things have changed now), my petrol car was still the superior choice, and I was originally all-in, ready to buy an EV.
 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,505
Location
Flushing, NY
You forgot to include all of the losses of electrical transmission and conversion. Then there's the EV in and of itself. Charging losses, storage losses, and then conversion losses back to motion.
I edited my post to include those before I even saw this post. I knew someone would bring that up. Also note that we're starting to use GaN in electronic power supplies. That's going to increase overall efficiency of EV charging/conversion by a few percent.

The main point though is shifting emissions from the tailpipe to a coal or natural gas plant has two advantages. One is the much better pollution controls already mentioned by vicv. The other is the fact the emissions are moved away from population centers where large numbers of vehicles tend to drive.
 

vicv

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 22, 2013
Messages
2,866
Location
Southern Ontario
I edited my post to include those before I even saw this post. I knew someone would bring that up. Also note that we're starting to use GaN in electronic power supplies. That's going to increase overall efficiency of EV charging/conversion by a few percent.

The main point though is shifting emissions from the tailpipe to a coal or natural gas plant has two advantages. One is the much better pollution controls already mentioned by vicv. The other is the fact the emissions are moved away from population centers where large numbers of vehicles tend to drive.
This too. It's away from where all the people are. There's a reason industrial land isn't zoned for residential housing anymore like it used to be. But all that exhaust is right where we live and work. I also forgot to include the efficiencies in my first post but that's been covered now. I'm not saying electrical is the only way now, but there is a lot of politics getting in the way of what science is telling us. If you don't want an electric vehicle, don't get one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top