Your thoughts on the Ev furure

[techno 3,476]

James has made a couple of interesting videos about EV and the future both I think are excellent and raise valid points. I personally have nothing against EV however I do have an issue with it being forced in people rather than letting market forces etc determine the outcome. If these things are "the future" people would move to them without the need for legislation surely? 

 

 

This next one I personally have been making some of the same points.

 

Now my in my future I won't have to own an EV myself however the wife will and as such we will have the issue of upfront cost through motorbility. This issue is already being raised as manufacturers have said that even today the upfront cost is too much for a lot of motorbility scheme users as they generally need a bigger vehicle. I however am also lucky enough to have off road parking. 

 

[Teenwolf25 327]

It’s a false economy, simple.. The infrastructure isn’t there for it. If everybody switched then we’d be in a right shit problem. As an electrician myself it’s not all it’s advertised to be… Yes we need to steer away oils etc but complete EV isn’t the way. I don’t know what the answer is but there must be something… Hybrids are a happy medium I think 

[Tove 488]

I don’t think EVs are the solution to Petrol/Diesel/Oil situation as the downsides negate the positives, however they do serve as a stepping stone to getting there, that and they also get a large number of people buying new cars that they wouldn’t have otherwise………..

[cyberninja2601 1,103]

I liked the technology but they are over priced in Canada in we lack the charging infrastructure.

 

To get a charging station in our Condo is $35K. Most parking spots in Ottawa/Toronto/Montreal (which are major cities) have 2-4 charging station for 500 spots. Most gas stations and rest stops do not have charging stations so you cannot charge your car

 

In Canada where it gets to -25C regularly in the winter and the distances between cities can be quite long (over 400 km between Ottawa/Toronto) your car might not have the range to get you there.

 

The need to fix that before it can become viable if you have a single car or all EVs.

 

I would have no problems with getting one if they could get me a place to charge it easily

[J4MES OX4D 9,798]

No country on the planet has the ability to support EV's even on a small scale. Sure, many are looking to phase out your petrol and diesel classics in the 2030's but this is just aims to currently appease any climate concerns rather than being a realistic target. Many countries can't even fill potholes in let alone provide significant infrastructure than will cost each hundreds of billions to fit and maintain. If this was planned effectively over a 25 year period then by now it would be in better place but it's all looking like knee-jerk last gasp desperation. As it stands now, there is no clear route to even trialing this in most areas and even then, people are massively priced out. 

[Luseth 1,757]

EV is only part of a real solution, not everyone can own one in large part to infrastructure as said above. What I think we will see if there is a real effort to curb emissions and the damage to the planet (which I am not convinced there will be, least not in time before lots of people suffer and die) is it will be a combination of better public transport (if it was good, conveniant and affordable who wouldn't sit on public transport watching tv or playing their switch on the way to work), hydrogen and EV cars. There will not be a single solution.

 

 

[Greboth 2,705]

12 hours ago, cyberninja2601 said:

In Canada where it gets to -25C regularly in the winter and the distances between cities can be quite long (over 400 km between Ottawa/Toronto) your car might not have the range to get you there.

 

But how often do you travel that far?  I don't know about your situation or Canada's but in the UK the average journey is only 12km.  I know for me, out of a 250 mile range EV, I could get around 6-7 regular weeks of driving out of it before I'd need to charge it.  That's not to gloss over the other problems with EV's, of which I agree there are many, but range is often given as an excuse when in reality, the range of EV's easily covers 99.99% of journeys.

 

1 hour ago, Luseth said:

hydrogen and EV cars

 

Hydrogen fuel cells are arguably the better solution than pure EV's as they can have significantly higher range, quicker to refuel and you don't need a drive / garage at home.  The big problem with Hydrogen fuel cells though is efficiency; as in the energy you get to put to the road vs the production, transportation, transmission losses (substations, pylons etc. not gearboxes) etc.  From whatever power source we use to produce hydrogen, only about 25%-30% of it actually makes it to road whereas pure EV can skip a lot of those steps making them about 50%-70% efficient.

 

Now we could just burn the hydrogen in an ICE but you then still have all the problems of producing the hydrogen in the first place and burning hydrogen still produces things we don't want like NOx emissions so that's out too.

 

EV's have a number of problems especially when it comes to electricity generation and infrastructure on a large scale.  But they are crazily efficient when compared to other options; 2-3x over hydrogen fuel cells and more like 4x to ICE, so I struggle to see an alternative to EV's.

[techno 3,476]

2 hours ago, Luseth said:

EV is only part of a real solution, not everyone can own one in large part to infrastructure as said above. What I think we will see if there is a real effort to curb emissions and the damage to the planet (which I am not convinced there will be, least not in time before lots of people suffer and die) is it will be a combination of better public transport (if it was good, conveniant and affordable who wouldn't sit on public transport watching tv or playing their switch on the way to work), hydrogen and EV cars. There will not be a single solution.

 

 

The other maybe byproduct of a better public transport system is it would open up the roads for those that can't or simply don't want to use public transport cutting congestion and local emissions. 

One of the things James says in the first video is that EV should state cut local emissions however an argument could be made that they aren't any real good for the actual environment due to the materials and production.

 

[Luseth 1,757]

Agreed @techno we should really just be looking to move away from everyone owning their own vehicle. Public transport should be good enough that it's not needed, there shouldn't be a need to commute to an office for work when you can do it from home. I mean there are cities now trying to move away from cars altogether (just thinking of Oslo in Norway here).

[techno 3,476]

8 minutes ago, Luseth said:

Agreed @techno we should really just be looking to move away from everyone owning their own vehicle. Public transport should be good enough that it's not needed, there shouldn't be a need to commute to an office for work when you can do it from home. I mean there are cities now trying to move away from cars altogether (just thinking of Oslo in Norway here).

My only issue with moving away from owning their own vehicle and it's something that's brought up alot tbh and one issue I think those in charge are trying to achieve by pricing people out of vehicles is that I have vehicles I drive for fun it's something that's overlooked. Also there are lots of people that tow caravans etc. 

Around here they are moving more to a park and ride system to cut city congestion. As an example for me I'd have to catch 2 buses or walk half an hour to catch a train where by car it's 15 mins. 

 

 

[cyberninja2601 1,103]

1 hour ago, Greboth said:

 

But how often do you travel that far?  I don't know about your situation or Canada's but in the UK the average journey is only 12km.  I know for me, out of a 250 mile range EV, I could get around 6-7 regular weeks of driving out of it before I'd need to charge it.  That's not to gloss over the other problems with EV's, of which I agree there are many, but range is often given as an excuse when in reality, the range of EV's easily covers 99.99% of journeys.

 

 

 

Often enough for it to be a problem if I had only 1 vehicle. My wife's family and our son Live on Toronto and we are in Ottawa. We probably make the trip 8-9 times a year. So I need something that can carry 3 adults and a mid size dog (which is one of the  reason for the SUV). 

My biggest problem is lack of a "personal" station. Like I said getting one would cost me $35 

 

 

23 minutes ago, Luseth said:

Agreed @techno we should really just be looking to move away from everyone owning their own vehicle. Public transport should be good enough that it's not needed, there shouldn't be a need to commute to an office for work when you can do it from home. I mean there are cities now trying to move away from cars altogether (just thinking of Oslo in Norway here).

 

That's something the doesn't work that well in America again. The public system is quite poor and most companies are now insisting on a hybrid model where you need to go in 2-3 times a day.  For me to bus it to work requires 90 minutes 1 way. To drive requires about 20.  That's to go between two major suburbs 20 km apart. People just don't to spend an extra 2 hours a day on the bus if the can avoid it. They if you miss on you have to wait another 20 minutes.  There's usually ample free parking and gas here is $1.4 a litter so people drive. Not great for the environment but I can understand why people do it.  I live in the Capital, so you would think the public system would be top notch. Smaller cities are even worse.  San jose was pretty similar. To go from our place to Intel headquarters was 11 minutes by car (6 miles) and about 70 minutes LTR/bus

 

 

 

[Luseth 1,757]

5 minutes ago, cyberninja2601 said:

 

 

That's something the doesn't work that well in America again. The public system is quite poor and most companies are now insisting on a hybrid model where you need to go in 2-3 times a day.  For me to bus it to work requires 90 minutes 1 way. To drive requires about 20.  That's to go between two major suburbs 20 km apart. People just don't to spend an extra 2 hours a day on the bus if the can avoid it. They if you miss on you have to wait another 20 minutes.  There's usually ample free parking and gas here is $1.4 a litter so people drive. Not great for the environment but I can understand why people do it.  I live in the Capital, so you would think the public system would be top notch. Smaller cities are even worse.  San jose was pretty similar. To go from our place to Intel headquarters was 11 minutes by car (6 miles) and about 70 minutes LTR/bus

 

 

It goes hand in hand though doesn't it? Public transport and it's reliability issues. If more people used public transport rather than individual cars, it would mean less traffic on the roads allowing buses for example to run more on schedule and to also run quicker because they are not sat in traffic. More people using buses means that more buses required and with more regularity. It is easy to blame it on poor public transport but it does require a shift in attitudes from the populace as well does it not?

 

I am not sure how it works in the US but here if they put on more buses right away to try and improve the system all that would do is put more traffic on the roads and make things worse, people won't suddenly one day go oh there are more buses I will start using them, they will likely carry on as they are and those additional buses would take up more space on the road and likely be empty. It requires a mentality shift as well as investment and improvement in the services.

[J4MES OX4D 9,798]

36 minutes ago, techno said:

Around here they are moving more to a park and ride system to cut city congestion. As an example for me I'd have to catch 2 buses or walk half an hour to catch a train where by car it's 15 mins. 

Where I live we have several park and ride systems but it doesn't work and now most people have 2+ cars per household so it's completely obliterated any positives that could bring plus the car parks only have a certain capacity. It just doesn't work and is ultimately outdated. May be more beneficial in some cities but in others, it just doesn't make a significant difference.

 

It's staggering how many cars are around my area now even compared to just 10-15 years ago. London has also decided to destroy small businesses in the hope of reducing emissions with ULEZ charges on virtually all distribution vehicles plus the congestion charges on top and other cities are trialing retarded traffic systems and other transport methods such as incredibly dangerous scooters. 

 

People will ultimately be punished for using cars just to get to work that aren't deemed green even though the clowns that come out with these strategies take 3 holidays a year and only view one side of the story. I think we're 30 years too late to make sweeping changes because the last 15 years have been too damaging. 

[Luseth 1,757]

1 minute ago, J4MES OX4D said:

 I think we're 30 years too late to make sweeping changes because the last 15 years have been too damaging. 

 

This is key, nothing has been done since humanity discovered the damage it was doing to the planet. Any steps now are just being done to try and keep the masses quiet and ticking along. It need's sweeping changes not just to the way we travel but our whole society and it need's to happen in the next couple of years not by 2050. I do not see it happening.

 

It's not just transport that need's to change, it's the products we use and moving away from consumer goods, it's where our food comes from (we should all be growing some of our own), it means reducing our meat consumption, it means reducing the number of humans on the planet and it means each human need's to be putting more into the planet than they are taking from it. All of this need's to happen whilst also having the rich (it would likely have to be the end of capitalism), the oil companies and such trying to put down everything that could result in them making less money.

 

But yeah I think I will leave the conversation there. I think everyone appreciates change is required, how we go about that change is often not agreed upon but I don't think anything we discuss on here is likely to be drastic enough to reverse the damage done and being done to our climate. I suspect we will carry on as we are, people will die and those that are left will have to learn to live with the damage and it's all quite grim and sad to think about especially when I know it's my children likely having to live with it.

 

[cyberninja2601 1,103]

49 minutes ago, Luseth said:

 

It goes hand in hand though doesn't it? Public transport and it's reliability issues. If more people used public transport rather than individual cars, it would mean less traffic on the roads allowing buses for example to run more on schedule and to also run quicker because they are not sat in traffic. More people using buses means that more buses required and with more regularity. It is easy to blame it on poor public transport but it does require a shift in attitudes from the populace as well does it not?

 

I am not sure how it works in the US but here if they put on more buses right away to try and improve the system all that would do is put more traffic on the roads and make things worse, people won't suddenly one day go oh there are more buses I will start using them, they will likely carry on as they are and those additional buses would take up more space on the road and likely be empty. It requires a mentality shift as well as investment and improvement in the services.

 

I don't disagree it requires a change in mindset. However for that a good system is needed as people already have it good in terms of moving (although the environmental impact is bad)

 

In Ottawa

- Busses have their own bus lanes, so the traffic impact is minimal

- We have an LRT. It's ridiculously unreliable. So much so that there was a provincial enquiry into it and the Mayor and City manager were accused on incompetence. 

- The city had recently invested $6B into that system and yet you cannot go North/South using it. Only east/west. There are a lot of people south including our Airport. However money is going in but the results are not what people want/need

- The system is designed to take people from suburbs to our downtown which is where most federal/city employees and the 2 universities are located. That's great for that group. Horrible the others. There are of the others.

- With people's busy lives of dropping off the kids, going to work, picking up the kids, taking them to Hockey/Soccer/Karate, going home, cook dinner, do the homework people are just not willing to sacrifice that extra time to bus it. You get a hell of a lot done with those two extra hours a day. 

 

I think the ideal scenario for us would be that your first insure vehicle should have to be an zero emission/Hybrid vehicle. Most people have two cars or more anyways. Then you can get whatever you want. I think in this country it would have a impact without changing people's lifestyle too much. Most people have relatively short trips where they can charge daily. 

 

[Lurchzy 1,470]

I find it's quite a fashion trend at the moment for governments to just mandate things rather than promote and fund good ideas and investments.

 

Twisting the hand only makes people double down.

 

I've always lived by the philosophy that if an idea is good it needs not be forced. A flowing river will always eventually find the fastest route.

 

I wish I could comment more on the actual subject but I don't own a car (or even a driver's license) and don't plan to anytime soon. I'm quite happy cycling, walking, getting the bus or getting a lift to places.

[cyberninja2601 1,103]

35 minutes ago, James5497 said:

I find it's quite a fashion trend at the moment for governments to just mandate things rather than promote and fund good ideas and investments.

 

Twisting the hand only makes people double down.

 

I've always lived by the philosophy that if an idea is good it needs not be forced. A flowing river will always eventually find the fastest route.

 

I wish I could comment more on the actual subject but I don't own a car (or even a driver's license) and don't plan to anytime soon. I'm quite happy cycling, walking, getting the bus or getting a lift to places.

 

Well I guess that is a comment in itself which supports what luseth has to say. That gets much harder however once you have two kids and do everything you have to do as a parent. My 26 year old son is the same. He has a license however. My daughter no license either. Both are downtown dwellers so there really is no need for a car. Hardest thing is groceries and everyone delivers these days or UBER it back home

[J4MES OX4D 9,798]

1 hour ago, James5497 said:

I find it's quite a fashion trend at the moment for governments to just mandate things rather than promote and fund good ideas and investments.

The G7 don't give a toss especially if its an expensive change in infrastructure which could savage the economy in its implementation and the impact it has in the changeover to established domains. Any agreements that these global governments make are merely to satisfy each other and to meet the bare minimums without receiving financial and investment penalties from the likes of the EU. These knee-jerk 11th hour mandates are drawn up of desperation because we're at a stage now where there's no easy way to implement and reward green innovations and users. If you promised to drive an electric car for the rest of eternity, it would probably cost you 70% of your income just to purchase and maintain. People just can't win and if the governments can't be arsed then people will carry on as normal. 

 

Some of the green ideas floated and implemented around the likes of London and Liberal-ran cities are so horrendously bad, people would rather harm the environment rather than destroy their income and sanity in endorsing these desperate methods. 

[Plumbers Crack 4,033]

Seriously, a very interesting thread but, on a lighter note, there is another option.....

 

 

[phil bottle 9,588]

As a teenage environmental protestor in the 90s it was clear to me that the majority of people are too caught up in their own petty bullshit to do anything about the environment, or anything else for that matter.

I'm just glad I'll likely miss all the really horrific stuff coming our way in a couple of decades.

 

How we organise ourselves as a species has done us in. Capitalism has ruined us. 

I remember as a kid when they finally banned CFCs. The corporations had been denying any issues for decades, saying it was a Marxist plot, but they couldn't really hide the big fuck off hole in the ozone layer which just got bigger and bigger. 

We were are now, it's too late to fix anything as far as I can see. 

 

Just look at the world, people arguing over bullshit, inventing ridiculous conspiracy theories, too scared too look at the real cause of our ills, like Nero fiddling while Rome burned.

 

I'll stick to my bicycle 🙈😅

 

[crispymorgan 1,041]

Micro transportation.  Clive Sinclair had it right, just a bit early.  Cities and all new developments need to build cycle lanes that cut through to the right places.  Regulate and permit personal e scooters.  Up the limit on power for bikes.  Even the Citroen Ami has a role for nipping about.  But as long as people are driving Porsche hybrids that are massive and worse on fuel than a small car we're not going to make any progress.