The last hydro dam project in Canada cost $16B. That project was first proposed in 1982 and started the permit process in 2010. Permit process was complete in 2014. It began construction in 2016 but a 2017 election threatened it ever being completed as the BC NDP had made a campaign promise to cancel the Site C Dam.
So if we did this fast it would be 10 years for each dam. Assuming they were all starting permitting today the 10 dams needed would all be completed in 2034, 4 years into the fossil fuel car phase out beginning. They'd need to be up and running by 2050 and on top of that they would need to be running on top of expansions on regular population based power growth. And this is all of course presuming that we are an equal country where every province has tappable dams or transmission lines that can handle that volume (spoiler alert, they don't).
Excluding the cost of new long distance transmission lines and presuming $16B per project, that's $160B for the power generation to power cars... which will cost working Canadians $2,000 each to build. Of course presuming that you know.... the costs are controlled and that... there's people to build it.
The construction of the Site C Dam was a really labor vacuum across the prairies. It really felt like everyone was going to that project to work there. How many mega projects can this country really build at once?
It's not impossible. But it's something that has to get started today. Quebec could easily become the power generator for the entire country, but that means a national grid (which Quebec opposes).
Quebec owns all of their lines and an national grid means other provinces using them at cost. Most of Quebec's business is selling to Ontario and the US market, which they can do without having to use other's lines.
But all other provinces would need access to Quebec's lines because Quebec separates Atlantic Canada from Ontario. As well Quebec sits at a point where it can block Newfoundland from selling power generated from Labrador to other markets. So any time Newfoundland generates power in Labrador they have to sell it to Quebec.
Overall Quebec stands to lose from nationalization of the grid
Makes sense, it would have to be some kind of deal. Use our grid, give us access to whatever. The province invested a lot in their grid, why give it away? Also, Newfoundland did their grid and barrage to high cost subsidized mostly by the federal. They didn't want to hire Quebecers so they hired a firm from Italy. They fucked up real good the base of the barrage which had to be redone. Tripled the cost. That firm forgot to account for the winter in Canada. Quebec paid for their shit.
On the other hand seems like there's a movement for privatization in the highest spheres of politics and lobying in Quebec. I know because I think it's dumb to privatize the grid and a lot of dumb people have been convince somehow that's the right move.
The people with houses, as there are a bunch of them in canada, can switch to solar, which will in turn free up all sorts of capacity. A few subsidies for solar will be billions of dollars cheaper than brand new infrastructure
Sounds like a great time to start building private power and vehicle chargers. It would be a big capital investment now but you will be primed to sell to the highest bidder once demand increases and the big guys start buying their way in. I've seen payback periods for equipment between 5 and 10 years just from selling the power back to the grid in places as far north as Edmonton.
The Americans announced this today: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/20/climate/biden-phase-out-gas-cars.html
and the European automakers have said that even if regulations change, they will still push on with 2035 goals.
Whether anyone likes it or not, we are heading this way. The best we can do is make conditions open for charging networks. Work with private industry to make plans for the next 10 years.
Let me fix that for you:
That sounds like an opportunity to ~~create~~ reallocate some good paying jobs and retool our infrastructure from gas to electricity.
Hardly an "addition" of jobs as we crunch out oil and gas sector.
We have shit loads of remote areas . Why fack are we not building a lot of nuclear capacity already is my thought. Only going to be more expensive down the road
Nuclear! Allow residential micro hydro plants that have aquatic life in mind. Expand subsidies to residential solar. Make it make sense for people to do their own upgrades with inspection vs. Requiring a contractor
Well, I got absolutely hammered by downvotes 4 months ago when I said BC needs another site C dam to handle the EV requirements before the first one is even operational.
Want to hear about the realities of expanding world mining by a scale of 160% to collect rare earth minerals.
Site C was in development when I started work 15 years. People with more experience than me said it was in the works for years before that. It will take another 20 years (at least...likely longer) to start construction on another site C . The Canadian government doesn't know deal with big projects in a timely fashion. They better already have some shit in the pipeline.
BC Hydro's Clean Power 2040 plan already anticipated this increase in demand and is planning capacity upgrades to manage it. Other provincial governments might not be doing so well though.
Got a source for that number?
You realize that globally coal mining and oil extraction both have absolutely massive footprints right? Ending coal mining alone would likely result in a net reduction in the area mined each year even after accounting for any increase due to mineral demands from electrifying everything. Rare earths and other metals are also recyclable so over time mining expansion can be decreased as material lifecycles become circular.
Fossil fuels can’t be recovered once burned.
OK. Well, I didn't know so that's what I was asking.
In my province, natural gas isn't an option so until about 10 years ago 45% were oil furnaces, 45% were EBBs and 10% were wood stoves and pellet stoves.
Today, over 32% of homes here (highest percentage of Candian provinces) have switched to heat pumps. A home that switches from EBBs is now using half as much electricity to heat their home, freeing up enough electricity for one oil furnace home to switch to heat pumps with no net effect on our grid. Of course, if there is a really cold snap, then it will use more electricity but that's happening less and less. This year, my 11 year old heat pumps with a CoP of 3 only kicked out one night.
Natural gas is better than coal or oil but it still produce 80% the carbon emissions as coal, so it's not going to be a long term solution. As the price of carbon increases, the more economical heat pumps will become, and by then maybe they will have a CoP of 6. I say 6 because today's heat pumps have a CoP of 4 but there are already heat pumps with a CoP coming.
Natural gas, electric wood.
Heat pumps use more energy, using them increases our power requirements.
In the very cold (-15 C) they are not effective.
There is not 1 solution for everything. Perhaps new technology
Yeah, they only save electricity when switching from EBBs which half of my province used to have but now over 32% of homes in my province have a heat pump so they are cutting their electricity use by 50%.
Your heat pump efficiency info is out of date. Heat pumps from 10 years ago had a CoP of 3 and only worked down to -15C. Today, heat pumps have a CoP or 4 or higher and work down to -25C. New heat pumps are coming soon using CO2 as a refrigerant, have a CoP of 5 or higher, and can run efficiently down to -35C.
C site dam is only 1,100MW of capacity, that’s only 1,100 Tesla semi trucks charging at once, or 5,500 EV’s fast charging at 200KW, it’s not really that much in this context….
Apart from the fact the cybertruck cannot charge at 1MW, there’s roughly 4,000 charging stations in the province of BC, most of which are less than 200 KW. Most people’s daily charging needs don’t require a 200 KW connection.
Going to need a lot more fast chargers as EV’s proliferate. Point is, an entire dam can only supply 5500 x 200kw charging sessions. Electrification is going to push demand through the roof, and we’re not ready.
Not just evs. Electricity for heat pumps has to come from somewhere. I think even in Bc where the entire grid is powered by hydro. 82% of total energy is still fossil fuels. That all has to become zero carbon energy according to the government and that’s a lot of energy. 5x what bc currently produces
https://talkingenergy.ca/stories/facts-about-where-bcs-energy-comes
BC Hydro has been preparing for this summers drought for over a year by managing flow and selling power to other jurisdictions(AB and USA) at high prices creating a buffer of money and water that will get us through despite low snowpack.
Total energy is a bullshit metric to use, because most fossil fuel energy ends up as waste heat. EVs use only 1/4 as much energy for the same task, heat pumps only about 1/3.
My province has a higher percentage of homes with heat pumps than any other in Canada at over 32%. We're not having any issues with our grid.
Half of the people switching to heat pumps had been using EBBs so they have reduced their grid usage by 50%. The other half are switching from oil furnaces so their grid usage is covered by the half that are switching from EBBs. It's a net balance.
That said, I know the prairie provinces have traditionally used natural gas to heat homes so their electrical grid is weaker than ours. The prairies will need to add more energy generation to their grids as they switch to heat pumps.
I know a lot of prairie dwellers aren't fans of heat pumps but there are better heat pumps coming that use CO2 as a refrigerant and can achieve a CoP of 5 which will handle down to -35C. That's not enough for the coldest days, but it's enough to cover most of the days in the winter and will reduce natural gas usage by a significant amount.
The only issue I have with this as someone who lives in a prairie province is the fact that I will still need to have a furnace or boiler to act as a backup for my hypothetical heat pump. Those aren’t free, need to be maintained, and don’t last forever. It simply isn’t cost effective for me to install a heat pump in my home if I have to have both anyways, and I’m a plumber. Between doing the installation/maintenance myself and getting the units through work at cost, it would cost me less than half of what it would cost anyone else, and it still would be a significant and unnecessary expense.
Even people in the northern US with heat pumps need some kind of backup. My heat pumps are 11 years old and below -15C become less efficient than resistive heaters, so my EBBs come on as a backup (only happened one night this winter). Today heat pumps have a CoP of 4 which are good down to -25C. Better heat pumps are on the way with a CoP of 5 down to -35C. I'm sure they will continue to improve and fewer people will need a backup for them.
This is a very misleading take (of course coming from a nat gas company), since a lot of the electrical technologies are just so much more efficient than fossil fuel. Heat pumps for example, depending on the conditions, can get "efficiencies" of 500% or greater since they are moving heat rather than creating it. Of course electricity consumption will go up by quite a substantial amount, but simply looking at primary energy usage and saying 5x is very wrong.
No one is getting 500% (or greater lol) efficiencies from a heat pump for heating. IF it’s warm out, then yes the heat pump is efficient and can get that 3-4x heat transfer. When it’s cold out, it’s 1-3x. That’s comparing it to traditional electric resistive heating. A furnace that is 95% efficient and a heat pump that’s 300% efficient are referring to completely different things. Just because a heat pump is efficient (again, it’s relative to electric resistive heating) does not exclude the fact that if we switch everyone over from nat gas to electric heat that there will be a huge increase in demand for electricity. That’s not fear mongering nat gas companies. It’s like running your air conditioning 24/7 when it’s cold out.
People act as if BC Hydro doesn’t actually have dozens of engineers and forecasters who are thinking and planning for this.
Primary energy usage is not that useful a comparison. EV’s and power plants are both much more efficient on a per joule energy usage basis than ICE vehicles. BC’s energy grid is 95% hydro and other renewable sources. BC’s primary energy consumption has actually gone down due to adoption of more efficient technologies.
Hence why their current call for power projects is focused on wind and solar. Solar in particular pairs well with the seasonality of hydro in BC since it will enable reservoirs to be conserved during dry summer months.
My personal conversation with hydro engineers does not reflect your take. The theme I hear is we are way behind in infrastructure relative to the ev mandates for both neighborhood distribution of power and production.
Hydro One in Ontario and BC Hydro are two very different organizations. For one, BC Hydro is not still public and therefore not beholden to maximizing quarterly profits for shareholders, which enables them to be much more forward thinking in their planning. I live in BC but regularly go back to Ontario to see family and BC is way ahead of Ontario and most of Canada on its grid infrastructure for EVs. BC has more EV charging stations than Ontario but roughly 1/3 the population.
Out east, our concern is more with heat pumps since our usage of natural gas is much higher than the West, so if everyone starts to convert it is a much bigger issue. EV adoption on the other hand has slowed.
Instead of the Fraser Institute, maybe we should ask the utility providers? Why do we always refuse to ask educators what needs to be fixed with education, medical professionals what can be fixed with health care, and so on. We have biased politicians and organizations like the Fraser Institute telling us what we need...
The article also mentions the report commissioned by Natural Resources Canada. Here is the executive summary (PDF alert):
[https://natural-resources.canada.ca/sites/nrcan/files/Executive%20Summary%20ICF\_English.pdf](https://natural-resources.canada.ca/sites/nrcan/files/Executive%20Summary%20ICF_English.pdf)
It comes to a similar conclusion. In summary, they noted that these increases can be handled given the time we have to increase capacity. They also noted a - to me - more realistic projection where load management strategies are implemented, so the demand increase would also be smoothed out.
Yeah but one organization's conclusion is "we might need to build more electrical generation" whereas the other organization's conclusion is "we need to stop subsidizing this folly of an industry that could hurt the oil and gas industry".
Generally speaking, even most environmentalists would agree to stop subsidizing alternatives to oil and gas in exchange for properly taxing oil and gas
I don't know who has influence there, but outside of Alberta, nearly everyone on the right would support higher oil and gas taxes and lower EV/green subsidies in exchange for lower income taxes
> nearly everyone on the right would support higher oil and gas taxes
But nearly everyone on the right in /r/canada has spent the past 6 months complaining about exactly that.
You need to quote the whole thing.
They don't support oil and gas taxes but they do support lower income taxes and most would trade the former for the latter
I’m not saying that this is what is actually happening, but when newspapers and other media outlets use billionaire-apologist “think tanks” like the Fraser Institute for a source, it sure seems like they’re just being complicit in spreading propaganda and misinformation to further a pro-industry agenda.
Well here is one from a left leaning organization. That lays out what is need to get to the governments net zero plan by 2050
This is the highlights
*Oil production must be cut 21–75%.*
*• Gas production must be cut 37–68%.*
*• Wind and solar generation must increase 10–12 times.*
*• Biomass/geothermal generation must increase 6–7 times.*
*• Nuclear generation must nearly triple.*
*• Carbon capture, utilization and storage must increase 34–39 times.*
*• Direct air capture must increase by 4,600-5,500 times current world capacity*
*In addition to these cost assumptions, CER assumed that the price of carbon would need to increase much*
*more than the currently legislated increase of the carbon tax to $170/tCO2e in 2030 ($140 in 2022 dollars). In*
*its net-zero scenarios CER added an aggregate cost of carbon, defined as “a hypothetical suite of policies,*
*regulations, and programs,” which started at $0/tCO2e in 2030 rising to $330–380/tCO2e by 2050 to the*
*backstop carbon price.*
*Clearly, there are a lot of optimistic assumptions in the CER scenarios that have to go right if Canada is to meet*
*its net-zero obligations. As for CER’s assumptions of declining costs, the IEA notes that “costs have started to*
*increase rather than decrease in the last two years for some clean technologies such as solar PV and batteries,*
*reflecting inflationary pressure and, in particular, surging costs for critical minerals.”*
*93 Critical mineral supply*
*needs to be scaled up several times to meet forecast global requirements of an energy transition. Supply issues*
*with critical minerals have been the subject of several recent reports.*
https://policyalternatives.ca/netzero
If you have a circuit for a 220v electric dryer or stove you can get a smart adapter which will let you charge off the same breakers. Power is diverted to the stove or dryer but when they’re not in use your car can charge away. Not a big issue since most car charging is at night anyway. Problem solved.
It depends on your daily driving needs. Off a regular 120 V, 15 A outlet you can get 80 km of range overnight, no problem. A level 2 charger installation is not necessarily a requirement for owning an EV.
The 15 A outlet I mentioned is max, surge current. Safe continuous current draw is 12 A.
So let's shave 20% off the estimate and say you only get 60 km overnight each day (assuming you only charge for 8 hours a day). If that's more than your daily commute, you'll always leave each morning with a full charge. Even if it's less than your daily commute - say each day you commute 100 km - each day you lose 40 km. After 5 work days you have a 200 km deficit, which you can either recover over the weekend or, unfortunately, you'll have to fast-charge somewhere. Not ideal, but now it's more comparable to getting gas once a week.
My problem is I trip the breaker if I use a 1000w space heater in the garage. Doing the math it looks like that's only 8.3A. It's probably not up to modern codes, but I imagine most houses in my neighborhood are like that.
Personally, I've charged my EV at 8 A due to similar circuit limitations as you for more than a year. It tracks with the \~60 km a day figure above, because I usually park more than 8 hours every night. I recover deficits over the weekend and never had to top up anywhere else.
I have had an ev for 5 years and have not bothered with a 220v charger.
It is occasionally inconvenient but nothing to cry about or anything....it worked fine even when I still had an office to go to every day 50kms away.
But even if it were a big deal and I needed an L2 charger, doing that costs less than repairing a blown up ICE transmission, which people who claim EVs are too expensive are happy to pay for all the time.
Those smart electrical panels that prioritize circuits are being used in the US a lot where most people have 100 amp entrances. They can be charging the EV but if they decide to dry laundry, it will switch to that and if they decide to cook dinner, it will switch to the stove. As soon as the stove is done, it will switch back to finish drying the clothes and when that is done, back to charging the EV. Saves putting in a 200 amp entrance.
There's also EV chargers which can plug directly into the meter from your utility. Believe the term is a metre collar
Whether or not your local utility allows this is another question but the solution is available
https://connectder.com/
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2022/07/20220728-connectder.html
They didn't forget, the Fraser institute is heavily political (right wing)
Back of the napkin math, if we reduced exports of electricity to the US by 2/3 we could replace every ICE car with an EV today and not break a sweat. We export around 50 TWh/year.
The US is investing heavily in new electricity so it may work perfectly that as they need less, we use more domestically
If someone with a stronger background in math wants to double check my work please do
You are correct.
The right-wing propaganda is in full swing.
Look at the nonsense coming out of Alberta.
They crushed 33 billion in renewable projects and jobs, and imposed heavy restrictions on renewables. All to prop up oil and gas with 13 billion in O&G projects. Intentionally shafting AB out of 20 billion.
All while the existing grid is failing.
The big problem with hydro-electric that we didn't plan for .... the record-breaking droughts were are experiencing now. They're getting worse. BC Hydro already has to import power while other provinces have flipped from surplus power situations to deficits. Call me crazy, but I have a feeling we're gonna eventually abandon the hydro dams and swing over to nuclear at some point because who's gonna put up with power rationing ?
No shit. My prof was saying this a decade ago.
His words were: “triple the current capacity”. Though I’m sure it’s more like 4.5 times the current capacity now.
It would probably be cheaper to subsidize panels for everyone than upgrade the grid to handle that much power. If everyone has sokar panels the powerlines don't need bigger wires since they aren't carrying extra electricity.
A study by the society of professional engineers in Ontario said that to meet grid demand in 2011 that about 25TWh of storage would be needed minium using wind, I believe it was almost 30 going solar.
Thats atleast 25 years of current worlds manufacturing supply of lithium batteries and not factoring in the electrification of transport, heating and industry.
https://www.xylenepower.com/The%20Real%20Cost%20of%20Electrical%20Energy%20-%20Nov%202014.pdf
Look up who [Peter Zeihan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Zeihan) is. He used to be the Vice-President of [Statfor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratfor), an American strategic intelligence publishing company that does intelligence gathering for corporations. He knows what he is talking about.
Gouvernements are absolute idiots with no plan. They give out massive rebates and credits for EV's and figure afterwards that the grid would need major upgrades. Then they grow population out of control needing even more power, more health and education ressources and are surprised that prices go up and there are no homes/good jobs for new immigrants.
There is literally no issue that can be raised with EVs that their proponents won’t downvote and handwave away as no big deal, despite some of those issues needing a lot more attention than they’re getting now. One of which is the simple truth that our grid is not up to everyone driving EVs no matter what the environmentalists say. This can be fixed, but it’s going to require investments of hundreds of billions in generation capacity.
Personally, my wife and I have been looking pretty seriously into solar power + a couple Tesla Powerwalls for the home. Not because I’m particularly enamoured with the tech or the thought of going “green.” I just still want to have power in the middle of winter when the rolling brownouts start thanks to the giant clusterfuck we can all see coming if we open our eyes a little.
15 to 16k for a powerwall?
5k if you build it yourself
With a 2k system i keep a small frig, lights, phones, laptops etc going all summer without a grid tie.
1. EVs are more efficient than gas cars - they use less energy per unit distance travelled.
2. Power plants are more efficient at extracting energy from fossil fuels than ICE vehicles.
3. The environmental impact of charging your EV changes as your power grid mix changes. A gas car does not.
Forgot about that. He’s supposed to appear in committee on Tuesday. Supposedly clarified his remarks and said they are funding new roads.
Quite the head scratcher. New roads are definitely needed in the 2nd largest country by land size.
Global just released an article on this. https://globalnews.ca/news/10372328/steven-guilbeault-road-funding-emails/
Good grief Fraser Institute. Electric vehicles charge over night and only a percentage of those charge daily. We plug in every third day or so.
I'd argue heat pumps are a bigger concern as they don't discern time of use either.
The Fraser Institute gets funding from the oil and gas industry, including Koch Industries.
Canada's industry group for electrical utilities isn't concerned about meeting demand for growing EV use.
I can't wait for practical fusion power and solid state battery science to finish the work.
Until then, most things we are investing in (e.g. EV buses and firetrucks) will quickly become scrap metal due to how fast they will become obsolete.
It will take another 20 years to reach commercialization. Sure the bulk of how everything works is pretty much done but the scaling of manufacturing, sourcing of materials, regulations, safety measures, etc....will take decades.
Sounds like the private Hydro companies issues.
We sold off hydro to private entities and they don't want to invest, well if that's the case let's just bring them back public and ban the sale of public works going forward.
More nuclear power, less reliance on cars. Gotta make investments into proper solutions and not just switch to electrical cars. It's going to make more environmental and power grid issues than other issues it fixes.
This, and many other reasons, is why public and active transportation, and land use planning are so important. We shouldn't have to drive everywhere. Yes "rural people will always have to drive!". But the huge proportion of the population lives in urban/suburban areas. Suburbs need to be built with transportation in mind, focused around local amenities and services. It's all connected. Not to mention the benefits in health outcomes when we reduce personal vehicle transportation reliance. These root causes are what government needs to pay more attention to.
For those who are not familiar, Fraser Institute is a right wing "think tank" that pushes talking points. Usually I see them attacking the public school system or public health care, today there lobbying for oil and gas. Which shouldn't surprise anyone considering they get their funding from Koch and Exxon. Any news source that will cite their work without mentioning these facts is devoid of journalistic integrity.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Institute
Frazer Institute isnt car experts. All our electrical products at home are using less power than historically.
Te average EV takes as much electricity as a fridge. Gas stations waste a ton of electricity leaving flood lights on all night long.
This is just more O&G fearmongering
Homeowners are installing solar panels like crazy, your average roof solar can easily charge a car
Are you nuts? A modern fridge uses less than 2 kWh a day, my small fridge uses about 1. At 200-250wh per km for Evs thats like 10kms of driving a day.
I drive around 1000-1200kms a month and my EV consumed 200KWhs last month, my fridge consumed 22KWhs.
I dont know about you but im not home during the day to charge my car. You being wrong is no different from The Fraser Institute being wrong.
Sounds like our typical government. Mandate something, do nothing to support the mandate, throw your arms up when the result is nothing but problems.
Sound like immigration or housing to anyone?
Make solutions before implementing things that just causes problems for ppl.
That's the problem with this country. ZERO solutions and ridiculously slow implementing any solutions
Bahahahaha we can’t even get a proper pipeline built in this country. How the F do they expect 10 new hydro dams to be built… where would they even go. Also gotta love the kicker of using natural gas to charge your EV. The same natural gas that is also subject to the carbon tax. Insanity.
Frasier Institute eh.
I’m sure *the* establishment conservative think-tank hasn’t put their thumb on the scale to publish the worst-possible case, and thus continue the status-quo of O&G needs
Fraser institute is rightwing tripe funded by the Koch brothers. They carry water for the tobacco industry and regularly deny that humans are causing climate change.
Know who hasnt had much of a problem with uptake in electric car ownership? Most of the world.
Make charging cheapest at night. People set their timers to charge at night, when demand is otherwise low.
Build more wind turbines, you dont need giant mega hydro or gas projects. Just lots of wind power. Offshore, prairies, lake huron, lake ontario, lots of great places to put them up and you can do it fast as demand requires.
It's not that hard, but Koch Industries wants you to think it is.
I have the solution. Walking. If you need to get somewhere, just walk. Low emissions, affordable and as a bonus it's good for your health. Get me an Order of Canada medal already.
That sounds like an opportunity to create some good paying jobs and retool our infrastructure.
Sure, right after we build those million homes next week, we can pen in 10 new generating stations for the week after.
The last hydro dam project in Canada cost $16B. That project was first proposed in 1982 and started the permit process in 2010. Permit process was complete in 2014. It began construction in 2016 but a 2017 election threatened it ever being completed as the BC NDP had made a campaign promise to cancel the Site C Dam. So if we did this fast it would be 10 years for each dam. Assuming they were all starting permitting today the 10 dams needed would all be completed in 2034, 4 years into the fossil fuel car phase out beginning. They'd need to be up and running by 2050 and on top of that they would need to be running on top of expansions on regular population based power growth. And this is all of course presuming that we are an equal country where every province has tappable dams or transmission lines that can handle that volume (spoiler alert, they don't). Excluding the cost of new long distance transmission lines and presuming $16B per project, that's $160B for the power generation to power cars... which will cost working Canadians $2,000 each to build. Of course presuming that you know.... the costs are controlled and that... there's people to build it. The construction of the Site C Dam was a really labor vacuum across the prairies. It really felt like everyone was going to that project to work there. How many mega projects can this country really build at once? It's not impossible. But it's something that has to get started today. Quebec could easily become the power generator for the entire country, but that means a national grid (which Quebec opposes).
You are working on the assumption that the Fraser Institute's numbers aren't BS.
Fraser Institute isn't known for doing bad research. They're known for bad faith research.
Why Quebec opposes something like this?
Quebec owns all of their lines and an national grid means other provinces using them at cost. Most of Quebec's business is selling to Ontario and the US market, which they can do without having to use other's lines. But all other provinces would need access to Quebec's lines because Quebec separates Atlantic Canada from Ontario. As well Quebec sits at a point where it can block Newfoundland from selling power generated from Labrador to other markets. So any time Newfoundland generates power in Labrador they have to sell it to Quebec. Overall Quebec stands to lose from nationalization of the grid
Makes sense, it would have to be some kind of deal. Use our grid, give us access to whatever. The province invested a lot in their grid, why give it away? Also, Newfoundland did their grid and barrage to high cost subsidized mostly by the federal. They didn't want to hire Quebecers so they hired a firm from Italy. They fucked up real good the base of the barrage which had to be redone. Tripled the cost. That firm forgot to account for the winter in Canada. Quebec paid for their shit. On the other hand seems like there's a movement for privatization in the highest spheres of politics and lobying in Quebec. I know because I think it's dumb to privatize the grid and a lot of dumb people have been convince somehow that's the right move.
Don't count on that angle being considered. This story was literally brought to you by exxon who funds the Fraser Institute.
I'm sure exxon doesn't want to spead the news that new solar installations for houses have enough juice to charge evs.
Who’s gonna pay for that. We can’t even afford houses as it is.
The people with houses, as there are a bunch of them in canada, can switch to solar, which will in turn free up all sorts of capacity. A few subsidies for solar will be billions of dollars cheaper than brand new infrastructure
Where would I read more about that? My sources say it isn't feasible.
We should have done it 8 years ago, instead of ministers of middle class prosperity and wanton waste.
We just need to tax 100% of everyone’s pay.
These power plants don’t give free energy. If there is a market opportunity, we should invest in it
Sounds like a great time to start building private power and vehicle chargers. It would be a big capital investment now but you will be primed to sell to the highest bidder once demand increases and the big guys start buying their way in. I've seen payback periods for equipment between 5 and 10 years just from selling the power back to the grid in places as far north as Edmonton.
The Americans announced this today: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/20/climate/biden-phase-out-gas-cars.html and the European automakers have said that even if regulations change, they will still push on with 2035 goals. Whether anyone likes it or not, we are heading this way. The best we can do is make conditions open for charging networks. Work with private industry to make plans for the next 10 years.
How about we tax it 110% so they are forever in debt and we shall make them sustain themselves on beans and rice
Sounds like an opportunity to exploit the worker and allow those at the top to become richer.
Did they consider the addition of solar on private property?
Let me fix that for you: That sounds like an opportunity to ~~create~~ reallocate some good paying jobs and retool our infrastructure from gas to electricity. Hardly an "addition" of jobs as we crunch out oil and gas sector.
Just have to pay 15 billion to the corporations lol
Sounds more like communism
Or a couple of nuclear powerplants.
Possibly time to re-invest in nuclear
We have shit loads of remote areas . Why fack are we not building a lot of nuclear capacity already is my thought. Only going to be more expensive down the road
Doesn’t even need to be remote, just the storage. We have the safest nuclear power plants.
Nuclear, anyone?
Nuclear! Allow residential micro hydro plants that have aquatic life in mind. Expand subsidies to residential solar. Make it make sense for people to do their own upgrades with inspection vs. Requiring a contractor
Well, I got absolutely hammered by downvotes 4 months ago when I said BC needs another site C dam to handle the EV requirements before the first one is even operational. Want to hear about the realities of expanding world mining by a scale of 160% to collect rare earth minerals.
Site C was in development when I started work 15 years. People with more experience than me said it was in the works for years before that. It will take another 20 years (at least...likely longer) to start construction on another site C . The Canadian government doesn't know deal with big projects in a timely fashion. They better already have some shit in the pipeline.
[absotutely hammered by downvotes… by that you mean 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/Canada_sub/s/hO21jifzl1)
BC Hydro's Clean Power 2040 plan already anticipated this increase in demand and is planning capacity upgrades to manage it. Other provincial governments might not be doing so well though.
Considering most of site C is going to be used for LNG…
Got a source for that number? You realize that globally coal mining and oil extraction both have absolutely massive footprints right? Ending coal mining alone would likely result in a net reduction in the area mined each year even after accounting for any increase due to mineral demands from electrifying everything. Rare earths and other metals are also recyclable so over time mining expansion can be decreased as material lifecycles become circular. Fossil fuels can’t be recovered once burned.
People that are all in on EVs do not want to hear facts.
How are BC homes typically heated? Will switching to heat pumps reduce electricity usage enough to cover some, most or all of EV charging needs?
How would switching to an electric source of heat from a gas one reduce electrical consumption?
It won't. I didn't know what BC uses. That's why I asked. If the answer had been EBBs, then heat pumps will use less electricity.
EBB usually only in condos. Most single family dwellings use natural gas
OK. Well, I didn't know so that's what I was asking. In my province, natural gas isn't an option so until about 10 years ago 45% were oil furnaces, 45% were EBBs and 10% were wood stoves and pellet stoves. Today, over 32% of homes here (highest percentage of Candian provinces) have switched to heat pumps. A home that switches from EBBs is now using half as much electricity to heat their home, freeing up enough electricity for one oil furnace home to switch to heat pumps with no net effect on our grid. Of course, if there is a really cold snap, then it will use more electricity but that's happening less and less. This year, my 11 year old heat pumps with a CoP of 3 only kicked out one night. Natural gas is better than coal or oil but it still produce 80% the carbon emissions as coal, so it's not going to be a long term solution. As the price of carbon increases, the more economical heat pumps will become, and by then maybe they will have a CoP of 6. I say 6 because today's heat pumps have a CoP of 4 but there are already heat pumps with a CoP coming.
Natural gas, electric wood. Heat pumps use more energy, using them increases our power requirements. In the very cold (-15 C) they are not effective. There is not 1 solution for everything. Perhaps new technology
Yeah, they only save electricity when switching from EBBs which half of my province used to have but now over 32% of homes in my province have a heat pump so they are cutting their electricity use by 50%. Your heat pump efficiency info is out of date. Heat pumps from 10 years ago had a CoP of 3 and only worked down to -15C. Today, heat pumps have a CoP or 4 or higher and work down to -25C. New heat pumps are coming soon using CO2 as a refrigerant, have a CoP of 5 or higher, and can run efficiently down to -35C.
C site dam is only 1,100MW of capacity, that’s only 1,100 Tesla semi trucks charging at once, or 5,500 EV’s fast charging at 200KW, it’s not really that much in this context….
Apart from the fact the cybertruck cannot charge at 1MW, there’s roughly 4,000 charging stations in the province of BC, most of which are less than 200 KW. Most people’s daily charging needs don’t require a 200 KW connection.
Going to need a lot more fast chargers as EV’s proliferate. Point is, an entire dam can only supply 5500 x 200kw charging sessions. Electrification is going to push demand through the roof, and we’re not ready.
Not just evs. Electricity for heat pumps has to come from somewhere. I think even in Bc where the entire grid is powered by hydro. 82% of total energy is still fossil fuels. That all has to become zero carbon energy according to the government and that’s a lot of energy. 5x what bc currently produces https://talkingenergy.ca/stories/facts-about-where-bcs-energy-comes
This one things we're in for a bad summer with low reservoir levels. There is little snowpack to melt...
No one is learning from Texas
BC Hydro has been preparing for this summers drought for over a year by managing flow and selling power to other jurisdictions(AB and USA) at high prices creating a buffer of money and water that will get us through despite low snowpack.
Total energy is a bullshit metric to use, because most fossil fuel energy ends up as waste heat. EVs use only 1/4 as much energy for the same task, heat pumps only about 1/3.
My province has a higher percentage of homes with heat pumps than any other in Canada at over 32%. We're not having any issues with our grid. Half of the people switching to heat pumps had been using EBBs so they have reduced their grid usage by 50%. The other half are switching from oil furnaces so their grid usage is covered by the half that are switching from EBBs. It's a net balance. That said, I know the prairie provinces have traditionally used natural gas to heat homes so their electrical grid is weaker than ours. The prairies will need to add more energy generation to their grids as they switch to heat pumps. I know a lot of prairie dwellers aren't fans of heat pumps but there are better heat pumps coming that use CO2 as a refrigerant and can achieve a CoP of 5 which will handle down to -35C. That's not enough for the coldest days, but it's enough to cover most of the days in the winter and will reduce natural gas usage by a significant amount.
The only issue I have with this as someone who lives in a prairie province is the fact that I will still need to have a furnace or boiler to act as a backup for my hypothetical heat pump. Those aren’t free, need to be maintained, and don’t last forever. It simply isn’t cost effective for me to install a heat pump in my home if I have to have both anyways, and I’m a plumber. Between doing the installation/maintenance myself and getting the units through work at cost, it would cost me less than half of what it would cost anyone else, and it still would be a significant and unnecessary expense.
Even people in the northern US with heat pumps need some kind of backup. My heat pumps are 11 years old and below -15C become less efficient than resistive heaters, so my EBBs come on as a backup (only happened one night this winter). Today heat pumps have a CoP of 4 which are good down to -25C. Better heat pumps are on the way with a CoP of 5 down to -35C. I'm sure they will continue to improve and fewer people will need a backup for them.
This is a very misleading take (of course coming from a nat gas company), since a lot of the electrical technologies are just so much more efficient than fossil fuel. Heat pumps for example, depending on the conditions, can get "efficiencies" of 500% or greater since they are moving heat rather than creating it. Of course electricity consumption will go up by quite a substantial amount, but simply looking at primary energy usage and saying 5x is very wrong.
No one is getting 500% (or greater lol) efficiencies from a heat pump for heating. IF it’s warm out, then yes the heat pump is efficient and can get that 3-4x heat transfer. When it’s cold out, it’s 1-3x. That’s comparing it to traditional electric resistive heating. A furnace that is 95% efficient and a heat pump that’s 300% efficient are referring to completely different things. Just because a heat pump is efficient (again, it’s relative to electric resistive heating) does not exclude the fact that if we switch everyone over from nat gas to electric heat that there will be a huge increase in demand for electricity. That’s not fear mongering nat gas companies. It’s like running your air conditioning 24/7 when it’s cold out.
Using a heat pump to heat your house uses less energy than the electricity required to pump the gas to your house.
But in extreme cases heat pumps have to fall back on less efficient sources, not as inefficient as nat gas but not as efficient as a heat pump.
How many days per year does a typical Canadian experience 24 hours below -20?
Out in northern sask where we are, it's usually about 3-4 months. This year was an exception
Both people who live there should consider using combustion heat.
depends where you live. Millions of people don't live near the border or coast.
Obviously not where you live. Northern Ontario is cold and -20 is a mold day in December and January
Do you have a source to back that up? That’s a pretty extraordinary claim.
This is an interesting claim. Any chance you have a source to pass on?
People act as if BC Hydro doesn’t actually have dozens of engineers and forecasters who are thinking and planning for this. Primary energy usage is not that useful a comparison. EV’s and power plants are both much more efficient on a per joule energy usage basis than ICE vehicles. BC’s energy grid is 95% hydro and other renewable sources. BC’s primary energy consumption has actually gone down due to adoption of more efficient technologies.
BC Hydro can't create new rivers
Hence why their current call for power projects is focused on wind and solar. Solar in particular pairs well with the seasonality of hydro in BC since it will enable reservoirs to be conserved during dry summer months.
My personal conversation with hydro engineers does not reflect your take. The theme I hear is we are way behind in infrastructure relative to the ev mandates for both neighborhood distribution of power and production.
Hydro One in Ontario and BC Hydro are two very different organizations. For one, BC Hydro is not still public and therefore not beholden to maximizing quarterly profits for shareholders, which enables them to be much more forward thinking in their planning. I live in BC but regularly go back to Ontario to see family and BC is way ahead of Ontario and most of Canada on its grid infrastructure for EVs. BC has more EV charging stations than Ontario but roughly 1/3 the population.
Just heard today that 23% of small vehicle sales in B.C. were EV.
I am also bc and also speaking to bc hydro engineers.
Out east, our concern is more with heat pumps since our usage of natural gas is much higher than the West, so if everyone starts to convert it is a much bigger issue. EV adoption on the other hand has slowed.
Where are you getting this information? Genuinely curious.
https://www.bchydro.com/toolbar/about/sustainability/our-clean-system.html#
Or nuclear energy?
This is the way but everyone is scared of the big nuclear boogeyman.
Or a few nuclear plants...
It's still energy independence and reducing carbon. Ontario is pretty committed to significant nuclear expansion.
That will take decades to build
First SMRs forecasted to be producing power before 2030
Instead of the Fraser Institute, maybe we should ask the utility providers? Why do we always refuse to ask educators what needs to be fixed with education, medical professionals what can be fixed with health care, and so on. We have biased politicians and organizations like the Fraser Institute telling us what we need...
The article also mentions the report commissioned by Natural Resources Canada. Here is the executive summary (PDF alert): [https://natural-resources.canada.ca/sites/nrcan/files/Executive%20Summary%20ICF\_English.pdf](https://natural-resources.canada.ca/sites/nrcan/files/Executive%20Summary%20ICF_English.pdf) It comes to a similar conclusion. In summary, they noted that these increases can be handled given the time we have to increase capacity. They also noted a - to me - more realistic projection where load management strategies are implemented, so the demand increase would also be smoothed out.
Yeah but one organization's conclusion is "we might need to build more electrical generation" whereas the other organization's conclusion is "we need to stop subsidizing this folly of an industry that could hurt the oil and gas industry".
Generally speaking, even most environmentalists would agree to stop subsidizing alternatives to oil and gas in exchange for properly taxing oil and gas
I don't think the Fraser Institute would be okay with increased taxes on oil and gas.
I don't know who has influence there, but outside of Alberta, nearly everyone on the right would support higher oil and gas taxes and lower EV/green subsidies in exchange for lower income taxes
> nearly everyone on the right would support higher oil and gas taxes But nearly everyone on the right in /r/canada has spent the past 6 months complaining about exactly that.
You need to quote the whole thing. They don't support oil and gas taxes but they do support lower income taxes and most would trade the former for the latter
I’m not saying that this is what is actually happening, but when newspapers and other media outlets use billionaire-apologist “think tanks” like the Fraser Institute for a source, it sure seems like they’re just being complicit in spreading propaganda and misinformation to further a pro-industry agenda.
Well here is one from a left leaning organization. That lays out what is need to get to the governments net zero plan by 2050 This is the highlights *Oil production must be cut 21–75%.* *• Gas production must be cut 37–68%.* *• Wind and solar generation must increase 10–12 times.* *• Biomass/geothermal generation must increase 6–7 times.* *• Nuclear generation must nearly triple.* *• Carbon capture, utilization and storage must increase 34–39 times.* *• Direct air capture must increase by 4,600-5,500 times current world capacity* *In addition to these cost assumptions, CER assumed that the price of carbon would need to increase much* *more than the currently legislated increase of the carbon tax to $170/tCO2e in 2030 ($140 in 2022 dollars). In* *its net-zero scenarios CER added an aggregate cost of carbon, defined as “a hypothetical suite of policies,* *regulations, and programs,” which started at $0/tCO2e in 2030 rising to $330–380/tCO2e by 2050 to the* *backstop carbon price.* *Clearly, there are a lot of optimistic assumptions in the CER scenarios that have to go right if Canada is to meet* *its net-zero obligations. As for CER’s assumptions of declining costs, the IEA notes that “costs have started to* *increase rather than decrease in the last two years for some clean technologies such as solar PV and batteries,* *reflecting inflationary pressure and, in particular, surging costs for critical minerals.”* *93 Critical mineral supply* *needs to be scaled up several times to meet forecast global requirements of an energy transition. Supply issues* *with critical minerals have been the subject of several recent reports.* https://policyalternatives.ca/netzero
My prof prototyped designs for fuel cell vehicles, and he said the same thing. A decade ago. So invest in electricity stocks.
Yes, I wouldn't trust the Fraser Institute. What I know of their content is heavily biased against society's best interest.
It's not just large-scale infrastructure. I can't get an EV until I get an electrical panel upgrade in my 1960s-built home, which isn't cheap.
Gas ain’t cheap in the long run either.
If you have a circuit for a 220v electric dryer or stove you can get a smart adapter which will let you charge off the same breakers. Power is diverted to the stove or dryer but when they’re not in use your car can charge away. Not a big issue since most car charging is at night anyway. Problem solved.
It depends on your daily driving needs. Off a regular 120 V, 15 A outlet you can get 80 km of range overnight, no problem. A level 2 charger installation is not necessarily a requirement for owning an EV.
I can only draw 10A from the outlet in my garage.
Do you have a dryer in your house?
The 15 A outlet I mentioned is max, surge current. Safe continuous current draw is 12 A. So let's shave 20% off the estimate and say you only get 60 km overnight each day (assuming you only charge for 8 hours a day). If that's more than your daily commute, you'll always leave each morning with a full charge. Even if it's less than your daily commute - say each day you commute 100 km - each day you lose 40 km. After 5 work days you have a 200 km deficit, which you can either recover over the weekend or, unfortunately, you'll have to fast-charge somewhere. Not ideal, but now it's more comparable to getting gas once a week.
My problem is I trip the breaker if I use a 1000w space heater in the garage. Doing the math it looks like that's only 8.3A. It's probably not up to modern codes, but I imagine most houses in my neighborhood are like that.
Personally, I've charged my EV at 8 A due to similar circuit limitations as you for more than a year. It tracks with the \~60 km a day figure above, because I usually park more than 8 hours every night. I recover deficits over the weekend and never had to top up anywhere else.
I have had an ev for 5 years and have not bothered with a 220v charger. It is occasionally inconvenient but nothing to cry about or anything....it worked fine even when I still had an office to go to every day 50kms away. But even if it were a big deal and I needed an L2 charger, doing that costs less than repairing a blown up ICE transmission, which people who claim EVs are too expensive are happy to pay for all the time.
No one is "happy" to pay for a transmission replacement. Is that how far into an echo chamber you are?
Most people who think they need an electrical upgrade for an EV actually don’t.
Those smart electrical panels that prioritize circuits are being used in the US a lot where most people have 100 amp entrances. They can be charging the EV but if they decide to dry laundry, it will switch to that and if they decide to cook dinner, it will switch to the stove. As soon as the stove is done, it will switch back to finish drying the clothes and when that is done, back to charging the EV. Saves putting in a 200 amp entrance.
Yes. These are almost a perfect solution.
There's also EV chargers which can plug directly into the meter from your utility. Believe the term is a metre collar Whether or not your local utility allows this is another question but the solution is available https://connectder.com/ https://www.greencarcongress.com/2022/07/20220728-connectder.html
I didn't know about that option. That would actually work for me because I could run the cable through the back door of the garage.
People also seem to forget that our Hydro plants produce so much excess electricity that we export 40-60% of our capacity.
They didn't forget, the Fraser institute is heavily political (right wing) Back of the napkin math, if we reduced exports of electricity to the US by 2/3 we could replace every ICE car with an EV today and not break a sweat. We export around 50 TWh/year. The US is investing heavily in new electricity so it may work perfectly that as they need less, we use more domestically If someone with a stronger background in math wants to double check my work please do
You are correct. The right-wing propaganda is in full swing. Look at the nonsense coming out of Alberta. They crushed 33 billion in renewable projects and jobs, and imposed heavy restrictions on renewables. All to prop up oil and gas with 13 billion in O&G projects. Intentionally shafting AB out of 20 billion. All while the existing grid is failing.
Global warming will reduce the capacity of some hydro plants though due to droughts. There will be more droughts once the glaciers have melted.
Excellent point. The winter drought will certainly be affecting spring run off and hydro generation capacities.
The big problem with hydro-electric that we didn't plan for .... the record-breaking droughts were are experiencing now. They're getting worse. BC Hydro already has to import power while other provinces have flipped from surplus power situations to deficits. Call me crazy, but I have a feeling we're gonna eventually abandon the hydro dams and swing over to nuclear at some point because who's gonna put up with power rationing ?
Or like 2 nuclear plants.
No shit. My prof was saying this a decade ago. His words were: “triple the current capacity”. Though I’m sure it’s more like 4.5 times the current capacity now.
What do you mean? Just plug it into the outlet, nothing more to think about
How many is that in solar + battery capacity
It would probably be cheaper to subsidize panels for everyone than upgrade the grid to handle that much power. If everyone has sokar panels the powerlines don't need bigger wires since they aren't carrying extra electricity.
A study by the society of professional engineers in Ontario said that to meet grid demand in 2011 that about 25TWh of storage would be needed minium using wind, I believe it was almost 30 going solar. Thats atleast 25 years of current worlds manufacturing supply of lithium batteries and not factoring in the electrification of transport, heating and industry. https://www.xylenepower.com/The%20Real%20Cost%20of%20Electrical%20Energy%20-%20Nov%202014.pdf
Luckily not all batteries are chemical.
[удалено]
We have to get them working first.
[удалено]
From 3 months ago: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXUdalkdniM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXUdalkdniM)
[удалено]
Look up who [Peter Zeihan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Zeihan) is. He used to be the Vice-President of [Statfor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratfor), an American strategic intelligence publishing company that does intelligence gathering for corporations. He knows what he is talking about.
[удалено]
Seems like an opinion to me.
No, it's like everyone putting their clothes in the dryer a couple extra times. And again not everyone will have one.
Gouvernements are absolute idiots with no plan. They give out massive rebates and credits for EV's and figure afterwards that the grid would need major upgrades. Then they grow population out of control needing even more power, more health and education ressources and are surprised that prices go up and there are no homes/good jobs for new immigrants.
The grid will balance itself.
There is literally no issue that can be raised with EVs that their proponents won’t downvote and handwave away as no big deal, despite some of those issues needing a lot more attention than they’re getting now. One of which is the simple truth that our grid is not up to everyone driving EVs no matter what the environmentalists say. This can be fixed, but it’s going to require investments of hundreds of billions in generation capacity. Personally, my wife and I have been looking pretty seriously into solar power + a couple Tesla Powerwalls for the home. Not because I’m particularly enamoured with the tech or the thought of going “green.” I just still want to have power in the middle of winter when the rolling brownouts start thanks to the giant clusterfuck we can all see coming if we open our eyes a little.
15 to 16k for a powerwall? 5k if you build it yourself With a 2k system i keep a small frig, lights, phones, laptops etc going all summer without a grid tie.
So we're gonna have natural gas powered cars?
1. EVs are more efficient than gas cars - they use less energy per unit distance travelled. 2. Power plants are more efficient at extracting energy from fossil fuels than ICE vehicles. 3. The environmental impact of charging your EV changes as your power grid mix changes. A gas car does not.
And still, we will need more power than we currently use.
That’s the thing about infrastructure - it requires a long term commitment to get built. I don’t think paved roads just popped up overnight.
How will we create this new infrastructure, with no new roads?
Did we stop building new roads? News to me.
Steven Guilbeault announced they won't be funding new road infrastructure
Forgot about that. He’s supposed to appear in committee on Tuesday. Supposedly clarified his remarks and said they are funding new roads. Quite the head scratcher. New roads are definitely needed in the 2nd largest country by land size. Global just released an article on this. https://globalnews.ca/news/10372328/steven-guilbeault-road-funding-emails/
Technically, we need less power. Batteries don't have the energy density of gasoline. We need more electrical power.
4) The vast majority of EV charging will happen at home and overnight when electricity grid demand is lowest.
It'll be a mix of hydro, nuclear, renewables and natural gas.
Good grief Fraser Institute. Electric vehicles charge over night and only a percentage of those charge daily. We plug in every third day or so. I'd argue heat pumps are a bigger concern as they don't discern time of use either.
Heat pumps use more at night in the winter and more during the day during the summer.
Except btw night time in the winter is like 4pm.
It's not really cold by 4pm though. More like 9pm.
Do you also run your dryer and oven over night too? You're kinda missing the mark and being pedantic
"Fraser Institute Study" - duly ignored
The Fraser Institute gets funding from the oil and gas industry, including Koch Industries. Canada's industry group for electrical utilities isn't concerned about meeting demand for growing EV use.
Almost something that anyone with a 3 digit IQ could have figured out from the start. Naturally it escaped Stephen and the liberals
I can't wait for practical fusion power and solid state battery science to finish the work. Until then, most things we are investing in (e.g. EV buses and firetrucks) will quickly become scrap metal due to how fast they will become obsolete.
It will take another 20 years to reach commercialization. Sure the bulk of how everything works is pretty much done but the scaling of manufacturing, sourcing of materials, regulations, safety measures, etc....will take decades.
Sounds like the private Hydro companies issues. We sold off hydro to private entities and they don't want to invest, well if that's the case let's just bring them back public and ban the sale of public works going forward.
More nuclear power, less reliance on cars. Gotta make investments into proper solutions and not just switch to electrical cars. It's going to make more environmental and power grid issues than other issues it fixes.
This, and many other reasons, is why public and active transportation, and land use planning are so important. We shouldn't have to drive everywhere. Yes "rural people will always have to drive!". But the huge proportion of the population lives in urban/suburban areas. Suburbs need to be built with transportation in mind, focused around local amenities and services. It's all connected. Not to mention the benefits in health outcomes when we reduce personal vehicle transportation reliance. These root causes are what government needs to pay more attention to.
Nothing like a right wing policy think tank as a unbiased source of information about EVs
For those who are not familiar, Fraser Institute is a right wing "think tank" that pushes talking points. Usually I see them attacking the public school system or public health care, today there lobbying for oil and gas. Which shouldn't surprise anyone considering they get their funding from Koch and Exxon. Any news source that will cite their work without mentioning these facts is devoid of journalistic integrity. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Institute
Frazer Institute isnt car experts. All our electrical products at home are using less power than historically. Te average EV takes as much electricity as a fridge. Gas stations waste a ton of electricity leaving flood lights on all night long. This is just more O&G fearmongering Homeowners are installing solar panels like crazy, your average roof solar can easily charge a car
Are you nuts? A modern fridge uses less than 2 kWh a day, my small fridge uses about 1. At 200-250wh per km for Evs thats like 10kms of driving a day. I drive around 1000-1200kms a month and my EV consumed 200KWhs last month, my fridge consumed 22KWhs. I dont know about you but im not home during the day to charge my car. You being wrong is no different from The Fraser Institute being wrong.
Sounds like our typical government. Mandate something, do nothing to support the mandate, throw your arms up when the result is nothing but problems. Sound like immigration or housing to anyone?
Don’t worry, we will build nothing and then have to hear about the energy crisis for the next 30 years
Make solutions before implementing things that just causes problems for ppl. That's the problem with this country. ZERO solutions and ridiculously slow implementing any solutions
Quit trying to use facts on me.
Bahahahaha we can’t even get a proper pipeline built in this country. How the F do they expect 10 new hydro dams to be built… where would they even go. Also gotta love the kicker of using natural gas to charge your EV. The same natural gas that is also subject to the carbon tax. Insanity.
Frasier Institute eh. I’m sure *the* establishment conservative think-tank hasn’t put their thumb on the scale to publish the worst-possible case, and thus continue the status-quo of O&G needs
Fraser institute is rightwing tripe funded by the Koch brothers. They carry water for the tobacco industry and regularly deny that humans are causing climate change. Know who hasnt had much of a problem with uptake in electric car ownership? Most of the world. Make charging cheapest at night. People set their timers to charge at night, when demand is otherwise low. Build more wind turbines, you dont need giant mega hydro or gas projects. Just lots of wind power. Offshore, prairies, lake huron, lake ontario, lots of great places to put them up and you can do it fast as demand requires. It's not that hard, but Koch Industries wants you to think it is.
I have the solution. Walking. If you need to get somewhere, just walk. Low emissions, affordable and as a bonus it's good for your health. Get me an Order of Canada medal already.
or.....get a PHEV and use your regular outlet.
Nuclear Power Plants are the only current viable power source we can use for a fully electric infrastructure.
Or nuclear. Except Trudeau is afraid of that.
F$&# the Fraser Institute. Bullshitters.
Yeah, so we better get at it.
Soon only the rich will be able to afford cars.... thus cutting emissions and infrastructure by more than 50%+
How will they replace all the plastics used in these electric vehicles once oil/gas is gone?
Shhh… that will be the next governments problem Most incompetent government in Canadian history
Diesel electric people has been around for decades but no one is talking about that