• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

EV's, Gas/Oil, and The Future- another swerve split from- JT Hints Boosting Canada’s Military Spending

The challenge space will remain mobility/transport energy storage…the developing trends at the moment is chemical electricical storage (batteries), but they still have a notably toxic composition and significant upstream environmental impact.

We didn't care about the environment when drilling for oil and gas. Why exactly would we start caring about the environment when drilling for metals?

Ultimately, it's economics that will settle this fight. Not environmentalism. And every oil importing country is highly incentivized to get off oil. Being oil exporters we tend to forget that and project our views.

The future is (some like me would like to think) unquestioningly hydrogen…FCEVs for transport, and hybrid FCEA/turbofan/shaft aircraft. If I lived in one of the Canadian cities with consumer hydrogen filling stations, I’d have an FCEV in my garage right now.

Hydrogen will never take off for consumer vehicles. This has already been settled. A big part of the reason why is distribution. Nobody is willing to invest in the billions upon billions it would take to build a hydrogen distribution network, only to end up selling a fuel that is slightly cheaper than gasoline. Meanwhile every home, business and streetlight has electricity. Hydrogen could end up being the equivalent of diesel. Good for heavy applications like shipping, trucking and backup power. And even there, they are starting to lose share (even 2 years ago nobody would have believed electric semis would commercialize this fast).

There's only a handful of Asian automakers pushing FCEVs and that's cause Japan and South Korea have unique geography and population density that makes renewables difficult and they are reluctant on nuclear post-Fukushima. Most of this context doesn't apply to the rest of us.
 
Which is where Canada and other nations should be heading too. SMRs will help the electricity generation at source issue.

The challenge space will remain mobility/transport energy storage…the developing trends at the moment is chemical electricical storage (batteries), but they still have a notably toxic composition and significant upstream environmental impact. The future is (some like me would like to think) unquestioningly hydrogen…FCEVs for transport, and hybrid FCEA/turbofan/shaft aircraft. If I lived in one of the Canadian cities with consumer hydrogen filling stations, I’d have an FCEV in my garage right now.
Every time I hear Hydrogen my mind jumps to...
Image.jpeg
 
Fusion, lad, fusion.

I attended ITER's pitch to build in Pickering or Darlington. It's unfortunate that Harper never backed them.

If and when fusion comes this debate will be finished. Energy abundance then becomes an infrastructure, not a resource problem. Oilbros will have to be put on suicide watch if that comes to pass.

On topic what is relevant to Canada isn't just level of demand for oil and gas. It's growth. That growth is what drives capital investment which then creates jobs, boosts tax revenues, etc. So with the majority of mainstream forecasts projecting a global demand peak for oil sometime in the next 5-10 years and Canadian oil being on the more expensive and polluting side, there's a likelihood that change of government won't bring back investment. This gets particularly interesting if the US starts looking at carbon tariffs as a way to protect their own industry. And if push comes to shove, they are going to protect jobs in Texas and Oklahoma. Not Alberta.
 
For context I'm sitting here 500m from a propane plant, 3km from a major Natural Gas plant, 8km from Natural Gas power plant and god knows how many pipelines/powerlines/wells are within that area including at least 4 major (48" size) pipelines.

There's also the TransCanada highway, CN mainline, 2 sawmills, wheat fields and the coal mines are 50km away.

Where I really struggle from the whole argument is the different accounting mechanisms each industry is held to. For example -
Forest Companies operating on crown lands are not given credit for planting trees absorbing carbon - which I agree with as it's a crown/public resource - but they do get credit for work on private lands. While rail is by far the most efficient way to ship lumber the fiasco that is railcar availability means a significant portion has to be transported by truck to railheads 100's of km away which is not accounted for. On the flip side one of the unspoken and rarely discussed positives is the amount of co-generation occuring over the last 20 years via facilities and the huge reduction of the old beehive burner operations/landfilling.

Oil and gas companies are held to different - and ever changing standards - based upon production type (oil is different than gas, sweet gas different than sour gas) but the date for which emission reductions are to occur is relatively recent and does not account for the big drops/technology changes that happened in the late 90's. Ironically I see more solar used in the O&G fields than anywhere, including past trips to southern Ontario as a couple of panels + wireless/cell comms allow for transmission of information that used to require powerlines/manual checks....way less travel, way less environmental impact. And changes continue to occur but don't get me wrong while there has been massive per well drops in emissions there are still tons of legacy well issues - across the country - that need to be addressed. Unfortunately it's such a hostile business climate nationally it's no surprise the model has flipped from investment into the country to buyback/cash payout which doesn't help long term. There is also national differences on how the carbon tax is calculated with the tax applied to Canadian production + shipping + end use...but then it depends on which port imports land in and then it's calculated different for importing oil. So we're penalizing Canadian production and it's cheaper to import product from half a world away with way laxer environmental standards????

Coal mines - going to need alot of beer for that discussion. But Coal mines are calculated less about production and more about vehicle use as I understand it (and I'm happy to be proven wrong). So we're not taxing exports to other countries like oil and the reclamation standards are....variable. Some are still on 1960's standards.

IT industry - great work in some aspects but it's becoming more and more power hungry. While the power bill of each office is paid locally the downstream impact of use of the software is not accounted for.

Carbon tax in general thoughts.
  • So I sit on the TransCanada highway 2 hours away from a major center. I know several folks with EVs and they won't take their vehicle to the city as they don't have the time to sit around waiting for charges on day trips and the charge won't let them get there and back. Capacity limits them to a local run about only.
  • There is a Tesla charging station and a 3rd party independent charging station in town which is rare to have that much charging infrastructure available. I'm up to a total of 5 vehicles lifetime seen using them...obviously there are more than that but its' a very very low use for a very busy highway.
  • Condo in the city...EV's are banned from charging as the EV's using the plug in's downstairs goes against the building operating costs. So how to adjust the wiring of whole buildings to split out the cost of charging/powering EV's is a major challenge for communal parking areas.
  • No fuel tax being paid - a major part of the price of gas and diesel is the fuel tax used in part to fund highways. The best jurisdiction I've seen is England where their solution was to separate the fuel and vehicle. They dropped the highway improvement tax but instead you pay based upon the number of kilometers driven so all vehicle pay the same road tax.
  • I know this is Alberta but the carbon tax rebate for my family, for our smaller home...doesn't quite cover the difference in power bill rates alone. So every month I'm losing money due to the additional tax and there sure isn't any benefit when I add it up for fuel and other costs. That's affected our budget enough it's changed some of our consumption which means less meals out (which is hurting the significant tourism sector locally), travel plans (even family visits hurt now...not even considering extended family) and has been part of - not solely but part of - a big decline in the quality of life. With every tax/invoice adding in trying to cover their costs and I'm sitting on a flat salary for the last 8 years....it hurts big time.
  • it's a big topic of discussion but we run a pick up for truck jobs and small car for other jobs. While some of the car duties can be covered by an EV when I look at truck, and the cost of one...I can't afford it and frankly never will be. An EV costing more than my annual salary is just nuts and a truck is required for both work and hobbies here (try hauling plywood with a hatchback, or yards of sand or a moose). Until you get an EV with ranges - winter temperature specifically - in the 750-1000km range...I can't afford to go that route as a 500km trip on gravel is not uncommon for me.
  • With inconsistent reporting and benchmark prices - Quebec is lower than the rest of Canada. Atlantic Canada fuel oil exemption for heating but the rest of Canada has to pay for it's heating costs. Differences between Canadian produced products being taxed higher than imported identical products. It's a very inconsistent, political, and frankly all about the hammer tool that penalizes parts of Canada (rural, northern) and doesn't provide the solutions needed.

Ah well...good for a few coffees or beers to toss around ideas but as you might gather I don't view this as positive government policy.
 
I’m pretty sure I’ve had this argument on here with you already, but “we can’t do anything because we’re too small of a population, so we’re not going to try” is not a great argument.

If we’re going to follow that line of thinking, there’s no point in Canada leading anything. 2%? Why bother - we’re too small to contribute. Domestically, we can’t end crime so why bother even trying?

Yes, my examples were hyperbolic but “F it, we can’t do anything anyway” is also hyperbolic.
I worked in and out the bush in the 1980's till 2019. Our industries have come a long, long ways from then and get zero respect for what they did to improve their day to day practices. You will never satisfy the green movement partly as they believe their own propaganda and most have very little memory of what things looked liked even a generation ago.
I would not at all be surprised that some funding to prevent Kinder Morgan/LNGCanada came from US sources to prevent us from having international customers for our Oil and Gas and them losing a significant price leverage over us. China already pushes Fentanyl into the Western market to cause destabilization of our societies, corrupt our political processes, do you think they wouldn't stoop to funding environment groups to damage our industrial and resource outputs?
People object to environmental measures that damages our economies, reduces our production and exports and cost jobs with no replacements. A lot of people that work in resource industries spend a lot of time in the outdoors and take their role as protectors seriously and have a much better understanding of what is going on, then the perpetually outraged latte sippers in urban areas.
China, Iran and Russia really don't give a shit about the environment and it's plain to see, yes they do some performative Potemkin village stuff, but have very little interest in fixing the basic issues and instead lie about it.
 
I know several folks with EVs and they won't take their vehicle to the city as they don't have the time to sit around waiting for charges on day trips and the charge won't let them get there and back. Capacity limits them to a local run about only.
That's a choice they make. Presumably they have other vehicles. Or they seem clueless about charging. 30-40 mins while doing something else isn't "all day". Presumably they could charge over lunch or an extended coffee break. And that for a really long charge. If they are driving say 100 km each way, they shouldn't even need to charge. My sister in law does a 90 km commute each way with her EV. She just charges at home.

Given the number of two car families in this country, it's perfectly sensible to use an EV for local errands and shorter trips to save on gas.

There is a Tesla charging station and a 3rd party independent charging station in town which is rare to have that much charging infrastructure available. I'm up to a total of 5 vehicles lifetime seen using them...obviously there are more than that but its' a very very low use for a very busy highway.

Most EV drivers right now charge at home. The infrastructure is there to enable long distance driving. It will get busier over time. And there will be consolidation now that all the automakers in North America are implementing the NACS common plug. But generally, most network operators have data on usage and generally design their networks to provide coverage and minimize wait times.

Condo in the city...EV's are banned from charging as the EV's using the plug in's downstairs goes against the building operating costs. So how to adjust the wiring of whole buildings to split out the cost of charging/powering EV's is a major challenge for communal parking areas.

Condos are definitely problem. I'm involved myself on trying to get some charging at mine in advance of my next car. That said, go look at how Europe is starting to do it. They install fast chargers at grocery stores. Everybody has to do groceries. And in the 30 mins that it takes to shop for the week, the average commuter will have filled up enough juice in the car. It's far easier to build outside large grocery stores. We'll probably end up going in this direction over time.

No fuel tax being paid - a major part of the price of gas and diesel is the fuel tax used in part to fund highways. The best jurisdiction I've seen is England where their solution was to separate the fuel and vehicle. They dropped the highway improvement tax but instead you pay based upon the number of kilometers driven so all vehicle pay the same road tax.

The fairest road tax would be by vehicle weight since road damage follows the power law. I don't think in general EV users should have problems paying for road use. This seems like a non-issue.

I know this is Alberta but the carbon tax rebate for my family, for our smaller home...doesn't quite cover the difference in power bill rates alone.

The carbon tax isn't meant to cover the difference in power bill rates. It's meant to provide a province wide average rebate. If you're above average consumption, you'll take a hit. If you're below, you'll net.

And also that's just the carbon tax. It's not accounting for any variation in fuel prices, which you have a lot of, in your power sector.
 
Unfortunately it's such a hostile business climate nationally it's no surprise the model has flipped from investment into the country to buyback/cash payout which doesn't help long term.

I would bet money this doesn't change with government. And indeed a chunk of my portfolio is betting on this.

And if you're going to blame the current government for this, how does that explain all the other oil and gas companies around the rest of the world raising dividends and buybacks?

Watch what they do. Not what they say. And they are absolutely committed to building as little as possible, especially in places where extraction and processing is expensive thanks to heavy and sour. There's a reason Guyana isn't having trouble attracting investment.
 
China, Iran and Russia really don't give a shit about the environment and it's plain to see, yes they do some performative Potemkin village stuff, but have very little interest in fixing the basic issues and instead lie about it.

Good reason to tariff and limit their exports in to our markets. It's too bad we signed this:


The EU and UK are moving to tariff them for not taxing carbon enough. We should do the same.

 
That's a choice they make. Presumably they have other vehicles. Or they seem clueless about charging. 30-40 mins while doing something else isn't "all day". Presumably they could charge over lunch or an extended coffee break. And that for a really long charge. If they are driving say 100 km each way, they shouldn't even need to charge. My sister in law does a 90 km commute each way with her EV. She just charges at home.
A common flaw people exhibit when trying to engage in economic thinking is projecting their solutions and preferences onto others.
 
That's a choice they make. Presumably they have other vehicles. Or they seem clueless about charging. 30-40 mins while doing something else isn't "all day". Presumably they could charge over lunch or an extended coffee break. And that for a really long charge. If they are driving say 100 km each way, they shouldn't even need to charge. My sister in law does a 90 km commute each way with her EV. She just charges at home.

Given the number of two car families in this country, it's perfectly sensible to use an EV for local errands and shorter trips to save on gas.

Most EV drivers right now charge at home. The infrastructure is there to enable long distance driving. It will get busier over time. And there will be consolidation now that all the automakers in North America are implementing the NACS common plug. But generally, most network operators have data on usage and generally design their networks to provide coverage and minimize wait times.

Condos are definitely problem. I'm involved myself on trying to get some charging at mine in advance of my next car. That said, go look at how Europe is starting to do it. They install fast chargers at grocery stores. Everybody has to do groceries. And in the 30 mins that it takes to shop for the week, the average commuter will have filled up enough juice in the car. It's far easier to build outside large grocery stores. We'll probably end up going in this direction over time.

The fairest road tax would be by vehicle weight since road damage follows the power law. I don't think in general EV users should have problems paying for road use. This seems like a non-issue.

The carbon tax isn't meant to cover the difference in power bill rates. It's meant to provide a province wide average rebate. If you're above average consumption, you'll take a hit. If you're below, you'll net.

And also that's just the carbon tax. It's not accounting for any variation in fuel prices, which you have a lot of, in your power sector.

I don't think you realize just how poor most Canadians are, and how many don't live the condo life and can afford EVs period. Canada is a massive country beyond the GTA and Montreal, people making these policies don't get it. Those who want an EV and have the means to charge at home, which is the only way I would own one, have already bought one. The demand just isn't there anymore and manufacturers are moving away from the EV-only fleet. I would not want to A: Rely on the public chargers and B: have an EV as my only driver.

For grocery chargers, the amount of infrastructure and raw material to install chargers for every customer is immense. All that material will have to be mined (by diesel powered machinery) and transported (by diesel-powered trucks).

I'm not against EVs as a mode of transportation (The Hyundai ionic 5N would be my choice), just don't mandate it with an unrealistic timeline based on some notion that we are saving the country from forest fires, heat waves and weather bomb events.
 
That's a choice they make. Presumably they have other vehicles. Or they seem clueless about charging. 30-40 mins while doing something else isn't "all day". Presumably they could charge over lunch or an extended coffee break. And that for a really long charge. If they are driving say 100 km each way, they shouldn't even need to charge. My sister in law does a 90 km commute each way with her EV. She just charges at home.

Given the number of two car families in this country, it's perfectly sensible to use an EV for local errands and shorter trips to save on gas.
The issue is it's 200km each direction + getting around the city = more than a charge. When you're already planning on 4 hours+ driving sitting around for 45 minutes (that's what it takes him to charge) is more than an inconvenience and he doesn't want to be forced to sit in a restaurant waiting. Most folks drive in...grab what you need...and get the heck out ASAP. For the family in southern Ontario that means a run for the USA but for us it's significant.

Most EV drivers right now charge at home. The infrastructure is there to enable long distance driving. It will get busier over time. And there will be consolidation now that all the automakers in North America are implementing the NACS common plug. But generally, most network operators have data on usage and generally design their networks to provide coverage and minimize wait times.
That's my point. I'm on the TransCanada Highway...and there's no gas station for an hour around as alternate charging. But the infrastructure doesn't support its use despite the thousands of vehicles being used because the distances between charging are still to high and even with the charge locations here most folks I know don't want to risk the trip...especially in winter.

The fairest road tax would be by vehicle weight since road damage follows the power law. I don't think in general EV users should have problems paying for road use. This seems like a non-issue.
Except it's not road weight that the gas tax is based upon. It's consumption that at least here feed directly on how they pay for the roads for the first place. And if you remove that tax revenue source by mandating EV's then how are you going to pay for roads? Hence why I like the UK approach which ties equally all road users to impact (km driven) at registration renewal

The carbon tax isn't meant to cover the difference in power bill rates. It's meant to provide a province wide average rebate. If you're above average consumption, you'll take a hit. If you're below, you'll net.

And also that's just the carbon tax. It's not accounting for any variation in fuel prices, which you have a lot of, in your power sector.
I am comparing the carbon tax - which is split into a separate component on my bill monthly - and frankly is more than the power I consume outside of major event swings (cold snap) at least according to my latest couple of bills. I don't have many options for shutting down power consumption - lights? no cooking? no furnace fan on in 6 months of cold winter?. We don't have AC, the windows are open and fan is off in the hot weather currently. We're also below average consumption judging by what peers and coworkers consume based upon the bill amount chatter due to our smaller home. Unless I move to a condo in the city - which also means pay cuts, lifestyle changes, and frankly a new career - I'm stuck in my 1000 sqft home.

I would bet money this doesn't change with government. And indeed a chunk of my portfolio is betting on this.

And if you're going to blame the current government for this, how does that explain all the other oil and gas companies around the rest of the world raising dividends and buybacks?

Watch what they do. Not what they say. And they are absolutely committed to building as little as possible, especially in places where extraction and processing is expensive thanks to heavy and sour. There's a reason Guyana isn't having trouble attracting investment.
Fully aware of where money is going or not...and what is driving it. Heavy Alberta oil is displacing Mexican heavy (heavy oil is preferred for diesel production) despite higher transportation costs in part due to investments paying off and sour after 40 years of work is pretty easy to deal with upstream well before shipping terminal. Key is a mix of blends helps certain refineries work better or worse depending on where they are located in the world. There is also an element of acceptable risk which is why areas like Columbia are struggling to receive investment dollars despite dirt cheap labor and environmental costs and talking with folks who have worked overseas in places like Guyana/Nigeria you don't even want to think of what the impact is. For example this is Nigeria where the theft is so bad it's causing mass environmental damages and corruption issues: Oil theft still poses grave risk to Nigeria.

The EU and UK are moving to tariff them for not taxing carbon enough. We should do the same.

100% agree. If we were treating oil imports to terminals in Eastern Canada the same as exports from Western Canada at least we'd be talking apples to apples. Instead we're hamstringing Canadian jobs and our economy at the price of accepting lower standards from elsewhere.
 
We didn't care about the environment when drilling for oil and gas. Why exactly would we start caring about the environment when drilling for metals?
So we shouldn’t move forward responsibly across all industries, with due regard for all aspects of the environment, only those that governments and EV acolytes tell us to care about?

Ultimately, it's economics that will settle this fight. Not environmentalism. And every oil importing country is highly incentivized to get off oil. Being oil exporters we tend to forget that and project our views.
Economics influenced by extant government legislation and policies that include fiscal ramifications… 👍🏼
Hydrogen will never take off for consumer vehicles. This has already been settled.
Sorry, I missed the vote on that. Must have been some time while I was traveling from CDG to the Marriott Élysée…in a hydrogen-powered taxi…

A big part of the reason why is distribution. Nobody is willing to invest in the billions upon billions it would take to build a hydrogen distribution network, only to end up selling a fuel that is slightly cheaper than gasoline. Meanwhile every home, business and streetlight has electricity. Hydrogen could end up being the equivalent of diesel. Good for heavy applications like shipping, trucking and backup power. And even there, they are starting to lose share (even 2 years ago nobody would have believed electric semis would commercialize this fast).
What about the cost to upgrade the electrical grid to supply the millions of EVs to join the roads in the future?
There's only a handful of Asian automakers pushing FCEVs and that's cause Japan and South Korea have unique geography and population density that makes renewables difficult and they are reluctant on nuclear post-Fukushima. Most of this context doesn't apply to the rest of us.
This counter argues the case for EVs in a large expansive country like Canada. It implies EVs, whether pure, PHEVs or FCEV, are suited best for small, high-density countries…quite the opposite from Canada. EVs still have 1/2 to 1/4 the range of an ICE-powered vehicles, and where regular travel beyond that range is required, it’s an additional time factor…pending standardized interchangeable battery packs…which I would assume are coming…one would hope.
Every time I hear Hydrogen my mind jumps to...
View attachment 86603
2/3 of the passengers actually survived. Those who didn’t, died primarily from burns from diesel-fueled fires.
 
So we shouldn’t move forward responsibly across all industries, with due regard for all aspects of the environment, only those that governments and EV acolytes tell us to care about?
One of my biggest pet peeves is the lack of acknowledgement on the negative impacts of hydro dams. I get they are low emission but if you don't have to account for the concrete into the dam, the huge power transmission loss, the watersheds flooded and slowly rotting, and the environmental impact involved it's great.

Personally I like the Asian model of smaller water flow designed power wheels that you can adjust the height of for water depth and do no require damming of rivers. They are less efficient due to different turbine designs but a valid option.

It's funny that everyone hates on coal fire but when Japan and Singapore are burning garbage for power directly in the cities and ending up roughly equal emissions to Natural Gas power it tells you how much of it the challenge is technology (they have excellent scrubber technology and heat re-circulation) and how much is due to production vs. transmission loss. Its the difference between accounting for things at a local level vs. end state total accounting which really changes the story.

I'm not against EVs as a mode of transportation (The Hyundai ionic 5N would be my choice), just don't mandate it with an unrealistic timeline based on some notion that we are saving the country from forest fires, heat waves and weather bomb events.

I'm not against EVs as a mode of transportation (The Hyundai ionic 5N would be my choice), just don't mandate it with an unrealistic timeline based on some notion that we are saving the country from forest fires, heat waves and weather bomb events.
Ironically the State of California has imposed some pretty drastic rules trying to adapt to power grid risk and wildfires to the point that each heat wave event results in most of the major transmission grid being shut down to stop new fire starts. What is happening though is they're encountering more new fires than ever as everyone that has the freezer/AC/home/lights shut off due to grid shutdowns is powering the home with generators many of which are not vented or functioning well resulting in increased home fires. We were there two years ago and they had public service announcements asking people to conserve all power possible due to a heat wave and yet at the same time enacted some big law changes eliminating most gas motor sales in the state. If the grid can't handle it now how are they going to handle double the consumption (the state's estimate) for EV use?
 
We were there two years ago and they had public service announcements asking people to conserve all power possible due to a heat wave and yet at the same time enacted some big law changes eliminating most gas motor sales in the state. If the grid can't handle it now how are they going to handle double the consumption (the state's estimate) for EV use?

People keep voting for these self-destructing policies, why should we stop them? Canada is thankfully on the way to change the course on this type of lunacy.
 
That's a choice they make. Presumably they have other vehicles. Or they seem clueless about charging. 30-40 mins while doing something else isn't "all day". Presumably they could charge over lunch or an extended coffee break. And that for a really long charge. If they are driving say 100 km each way, they shouldn't even need to charge. My sister in law does a 90 km commute each way with her EV. She just charges at home.

Given the number of two car families in this country, it's perfectly sensible to use an EV for local errands and shorter trips to save on gas.



Most EV drivers right now charge at home. The infrastructure is there to enable long distance driving. It will get busier over time. And there will be consolidation now that all the automakers in North America are implementing the NACS common plug. But generally, most network operators have data on usage and generally design their networks to provide coverage and minimize wait times.
Condos are definitely problem. I'm involved myself on trying to get some charging at mine in advance of my next car.
Pre existing Condos will cost lots of money to upgrade their services to provide Charging stations for all or even a small portion of their tenants. That does not include the increased infrastructure of the local power provider. who is going to pay for this?

I know the national building code is trying to incorporate new building with access to appropriate power sources for EV chargers. But the requirement's are extremely expensive and resource draining. Again who is going to pay for this?
That said, go look at how Europe is starting to do it. They install fast chargers at grocery stores. Everybody has to do groceries. And in the 30 mins that it takes to shop for the week, the average commuter will have filled up enough juice in the car. It's far easier to build outside large grocery stores. We'll probably end up going in this direction over time.
I don't live in Europe. I live in Canada. Europe can set up their own process and such, some European places have centralized steam for heating their roads, sidewalks and buildings. What works for them may not work for us. Similar to what works for Toronto may not work for Vancouver.
The fairest road tax would be by vehicle weight since road damaIge follows the power law. I don't think in general EV users should have problems paying for road use. This seems like a non-issue.
That is interesting, Electric cars currently would be paying more for road tax then equivalent ICE vehicles of the same size as they are generally heavier.
Axle weights and road damage are usually generic calculations until you hit larger weights ie semi trucks.
Then they will use specific tire sizes. More axle weight on a wider tire will distribute the weight causing less damage. But axle spacing, tire height, mass and width along with individual tires groups of tires etc all work in those calculations. A 18 wheeler weighing in at 80,000lbs will cause more damage then a empty Pick up. But that pickup towing a trailer and weighing in at 25,000lbs will cause more damage then the semi. Weight distribution is important.
The carbon tax isn't meant to cover the difference in power bill rates. It's meant to provide a province wide average rebate. If you're above average consumption, you'll take a hit. If you're below, you'll net.

And also that's just the carbon tax. It's not accounting for any variation in fuel prices, which you have a lot of, in your power sector.
The carbon tax is a scam to make people reliant on government handouts. Extremely few if anyone nets from the carbon rebate. It appears as one does but unless they live off grid, are 100% self sufficient they are paying more then they are getting back.
We didn't care about the environment when drilling for oil and gas. Why exactly would we start caring about the environment when drilling for metals?
LOL, one has to define care. When you say "We" I guess your saying people who use fossil sources to heat, transport manufacture and support ecomomies every day for the past thousand plus years. Have adapted over time to make things safer, cleaner and more efficient.
or is "we" the big bad oil and gas companies?
It is funny Some seem to care now about where "your" fuel comes from. But those same people "don't care" where their fuel comes from crowd
Ultimately, it's economics that will settle this fight. Not environmentalism. And every oil importing country is highly incentivized to get off oil. Being oil exporters we tend to forget that and project our views.
Why are they trying to get off oil?
If they have to import oil for their daily needs, they have to have the money to buy that oil. If they have no money then they are directly controlled by those who will provide it to them for free or low cost. As long as they follow the direction given to them.

Or they simply buy into some green energy theory thinking oil and gas will disappear tomorrow if they stop using it.
Hint oil and gas will get much more expensive and more waste will be done if we stop using it for fuel.. We will still need it for manufacturing.
Hydrogen will never take off for consumer vehicles. This has already been settled. A big part of the reason why is distribution.
I disagree on that being the reason. The bigger reason is the energy consumption required to produce hydrogen for the output of the fianl product. Then the safety side of storing large amounts of the refined product.
Nobody is willing to invest in the billions upon billions it would take to build a hydrogen distribution network, only to end up selling a fuel that is slightly cheaper than gasoline.
Most shipping infrastructure is in place or can be in place fairly cheaply comparatively . The cost to build the plants is where the money would be spent.
Meanwhile every home, business and streetlight has electricity.
Every home also has water and could be retrofitted with a small hydrogen producing plant.
Just because you have electricity does not mean you have enough of it or the means to install and use a a charging station in every house. The infrastructure to generate, distribute and maintain that much more power is in the trillion dollar mark. Not to mention the enormous amount of resources required to do so.
Hydrogen could end up being the equivalent of diesel. Good for heavy applications like shipping, trucking and backup power.
I disagree, this would cost to much for this to be viable. Unless we are forced to do so.
And even there, they are starting to lose share (even 2 years ago nobody would have believed electric semis would commercialize this fast).
I don't think people cared one way or another. Trucking companies want a cheaply fueled vehicle that can operate efficiently, cut down time and perform the job at hand. If you look at the fleets going green and the issues they are having I would say the current operators will move away from electric fleets once the full cost is seen.
Realistically what I can see is a Diesel Electric for the trucking industry for long/ heavy haul similar to what Edison Motors out of BC is doing.
There's only a handful of Asian automakers pushing FCEVs and that's cause Japan and South Korea have unique geography and population density that makes renewables difficult and they are reluctant on nuclear post-Fukushima. Most of this context doesn't apply to the rest of us.
Those are the worlds largest auto makers on the world market. Toyota and Hyundai/ Kia own 35% of the world market.
Where GM, Ford and Stellantis own 34% of the market.

If Toyota, kia/ Hyundai are investing in specific tech. I would say that's the way we will be going after all the smoke disappears over battery vehicles whether we like it our not.
 
So we shouldn’t move forward responsibly across all industries, with due regard for all aspects of the environment, only those that governments and EV acolytes tell us to care about?

I mean, isn't the complain that O&G are being held to unreasonable standards? It's not like there are different rules for different projects. They all follow the same legislation. Indeed, it's increasingly pro-EV advocates complaining about environmental legislation that stops new mines.

My point here was that nobody really cares about environmental rules. Do you think Elon Musk really cares about climate change or selling EVs? Just like nobody gave a shit when stripmining a mountain for coal or putting down a tailings pond for oil sands a, nobody is going to suddenly decide that a nickel or copper mine should be held to a much higher standard.

Sorry, I missed the vote on that. Must have been some time while I was traveling from CDG to the Marriott Élysée…in a hydrogen-powered taxi…

You got to experience the unicorn. Exception doesn't disprove the rule. The numbers speak for themselves. You could double FCEVs worldwide every year for the next 5 years and it still wouldn't be enough to actually register as a rounding error. It's like saying Blackberries are going to make a come back. Theoretically possible. But really....

This counter argues the case for EVs in a large expansive country like Canada. It implies EVs, whether pure, PHEVs or FCEV, are suited best for small, high-density countries…quite the opposite from Canada. EVs still have 1/2 to 1/4 the range of an ICE-powered vehicles, and where regular travel beyond that range is required, it’s an additional time factor…pending standardized interchangeable battery packs…which I would assume are coming…one would hope.

Kinda irrelevant what we think as Canadians. We're too small a market to drive any automaker's market planning. Heck, the fact that we don't get all kinds of European models here, kinda shows that OEMs just put us in the American bucket.

As for range requirements, very few actual EV owners ever worry about it. Because the average person isn't driving several hundred kilometers a day. Nor do most people venture outside of charging network coverage. For those that do, they'll just end up being late adopters. There's no need to stop adoption for easily 90% of car owners for whom an EV would be just fine.
 
Why are they trying to get off oil?

Balance of payments. Every dollar spent on imported oil and gas for them is one less dollar to spend on infrastructure, education, etc all the things they need to develop their country. And worse, they get rupees and yuans for their exports and have to pay for oil and gas in USD. That's even more brutal for them. So they absolutely are motivated to limit oil and gas consumption to the extent that their economic growth and quality of life improvements allow.

Every home also has water and could be retrofitted with a small hydrogen producing plant.

Have you ever taken thermodynamics? It's pretty simple to understand why converting water using electricity and then using that instead of just using the electricity is more inefficient and therefore more expensive. It's also more electricity in total (to overcome losses) which means you'd need more electricity infrastructure, not less.
 
I mean, isn't the complain that O&G are being held to unreasonable standards? It's not like there are different rules for different projects. They all follow the same legislation. Indeed, it's increasingly pro-EV advocates complaining about environmental legislation that stops new mines.
Not my complaint, but I believe that the toxicity of the upstream production side of EV batteries is rather conveniently ignored and pretended to not be a factor requiring consideration and responsible action…

My point here was that nobody really cares about environmental rules.
Gosh! Don’t tell PMJT or Steven Guilbeault that!!!

Do you think Elon Musk really cares about climate change or selling EVs? Just like nobody gave a shit when stripmining a mountain for coal or putting down a tailings pond for oil sands a, nobody is going to suddenly decide that a nickel or copper mine should be held to a much higher standard.
‘Much higher?’ So nickel, copper…and cobalt and manganese and lithium and graphite are already at equivalently-legislated and controlled mining standards?

And the mountain strip mining for coal is being supported fully by GreenPMJT to fill China’s and other Asian countries’ foundries…

You got to experience the unicorn. Exception doesn't disprove the rule. The numbers speak for themselves.
10,000 vehicles in one city alone hardly is a unicorn.

You could double FCEVs worldwide every year for the next 5 years and it still wouldn't be enough to actually register as a rounding error.
You mean like EVs in the early-2000s?

It's like saying Blackberries are going to make a come back. Theoretically possible. But really....
No, because hydrogen-powered vehicle were never an ubiquitous vehicle type previously.

Kinda irrelevant what we think as Canadians. We're too small a market to drive any automaker's market planning. Heck, the fact that we don't get all kinds of European models here, kinda shows that OEMs just put us in the American bucket.
So if European vehicle trends follow existing SE Asian trends to hydrogenize, would your argument change?

As for range requirements, very few actual EV owners ever worry about it. Because the average person isn't driving several hundred kilometers a day. Nor do most people venture outside of charging network coverage. For those that do, they'll just end up being late adopters. There's no need to stop adoption for easily 90% of existing car owners for whom an EV would be just fine. who should actually not have a car at all and make use of public transit or e-bike inside the city centre.
TFTFY
 
10,000 vehicles in one city alone hardly is a unicorn.
By global standards? Unicorn. We have several Canadian cities with over 10k EVs and we're hardly leading the pack on adoption. On the other hand, outside of Korea and Japan, any city with triple digit FCEVs are exceptionally rare demonstration fleets.

You mean like EVs in the early-2000s?

The difference is that EVs actually started growing. I don't know if any markets outside the two mentioned where FCEVs are taking off for the general consumer. Realistic chance there's actually more Zambonis in the world than FCEVs passenger vehicles. If you saw a city with 10 000 of them, that's a double digit percentage of the global fleet.

So if European vehicle trends follow existing SE Asian trends to hydrogenize, would your argument change?

The market is the market. If the market decided on hydrogen it would, again, be without consideration of Canadian needs and wants.

I see zero chance of hydrogen for consumer vehicles simply because nobody is investing in it. Not even a bit. Not even with generous government subsidies offered. There's a few filling stations being built in Canada and the US for trucking. But that's about it. Compare the infrastructure difference across North America here:


It's even worse when you consider that you need a filling station for an FCEV. But you can use a 110V outlet for any EV.

Oh and if you do find a filling station? Well it ain't gonna be cheap:

 
Last edited:
Back
Top