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.
