Canadian Money Forum banner

41 - 59 of 59 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,140 Posts
Why not use a test that does not have a predetermined outcome? Car & Driver seem pretty non biased...heres their results of actual ownership.

Three-Year Ownership Cost Comparison
After three years the grand totals give some insight into the question, "are EVs cheaper?" Based on purchase price, fuel, maintenance costs, and depreciation over a three-year period here's what we've found for the cost-of-ownership of our subject vehicles:

Mini Hardtop: $41,454

Mini Electric: $49,312

Hyundai Kona: $39,817

Hyundai Kona Electric: $55,311


Getting close but maybe once EV adoption rate rises...

Among G7 countries, Canada is tied with Germany for the highest EV adoption rate, at 3.0 per cent of total vehicles on the road. The global average is 2.5 per cent. British Columbia leads the country at about 5.0 per cent
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,425 Posts
Among G7 countries, Canada is tied with Germany for the highest EV adoption rate, at 3.0 per cent of total vehicles on the road. The global average is 2.5 per cent. British Columbia leads the country at about 5.0 per cent
Ummmm isn't all the EU in the G7? That would mean Sweden is leading with over 12%.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,909 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,045 Posts
Why not use a test that does not have a predetermined outcome? Car & Driver seem pretty non biased...heres their results of actual ownership.

Three-Year Ownership Cost Comparison
After three years the grand totals give some insight into the question, "are EVs cheaper?" Based on purchase price, fuel, maintenance costs, and depreciation over a three-year period here's what we've found for the cost-of-ownership of our subject vehicles:

Mini Hardtop: $41,454

Mini Electric: $49,312

Hyundai Kona: $39,817

Hyundai Kona Electric: $55,311


Getting close but maybe once EV adoption rate rises...

Among G7 countries, Canada is tied with Germany for the highest EV adoption rate, at 3.0 per cent of total vehicles on the road. The global average is 2.5 per cent. British Columbia leads the country at about 5.0 per cent
This is total cost of ownership, not energy life cycle analysis. 3 years seems like a short time frame for such an analysis, isn't 5 years more typical?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,045 Posts
Please give detailed reasons why each is flawed. Otherwise, you're just trolling and were not asking sincerely in the first place.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,039 Posts
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 280PPM to 380PPM in the last 100 years. That 100PPM has supposedly increased the temperature of the whole world by 1 degree. 100PPM or parts per million, is the same as .001%. That means CO2 is the most powerful insulation in the universe. If .001% will raise the temp 1 degree what would 100% do? Why don't we insulate our houses with CO2? We could take all the discarded CO2 from power plants and put it into bubble wrap and use it to insulate our houses. This would sequester the CO2 and make our houses so well insulated we could heat them all winter on 1 gallon of oil. It makes at least as much sense as any other proposal, most of which don't even pretend to cure the problem.
CO2 is very effective at blocking infrared radiation, but that only accounts for about 10% of the heat lost by a typical house. The rest of the heat loss is caused by convection and conduction, which CO2 has no effect on. So even if you could block 100% of the infrared radiation, you would only gain a 10% benefit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,877 Posts
Imagine producing oil that was carbon negative. Or creating petroleum products from CO2 sucked directly from the air. Or replacing coal and natural gas with carbon free nuclear power. Unfortunately, it's not really about the oil or the environment. It's more about control and the message.

CO2 emissions can be solved today with cost effective and realistic solutions. It doesn't get solved because it becomes about power and not about solving the problem.

If it's not wind and solar, then you're a climate denier that is destroying the planet and ruining children's childhoods.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,425 Posts
No
The Group of Seven (G7) is an international intergovernmental economic organization consisting of seven major developed countries: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States
What ... the canada gov link is wrong? lol

Canada and the G7

From above link ...
The G7 is an informal grouping of seven of the world’s advanced economies consisting of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,909 Posts
What ... the canada gov link is wrong? lol

Canada and the G7

From above link ...
The G7 is an informal grouping of seven of the world’s advanced economies consisting of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union.
That's interesting. It looks like the EU has representation, but never really thought of it being part of the G7.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,140 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,045 Posts
CO2 is very effective at blocking infrared radiation, but that only accounts for about 10% of the heat lost by a typical house. The rest of the heat loss is caused by convection and conduction, which CO2 has no effect on. So even if you could block 100% of the infrared radiation, you would only gain a 10% benefit.
You missed his point: he wasn't sincerely asking a question.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,045 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,909 Posts
I'm curious whether this is cost effective or just greenwashing, like the ethanol content in gasoline.
I thought it was interesting; however, there is some greenwashing.

They talk about renewable hydrogen gas which is kind of a nonsensical term, as hydrogen is being used for energy storage. There aren't many details other than the fact that it is using the Markham power 2 gas facility. The hydrogen gas is being produced by electrolysis, using grid energy. The intention would be to use the hydrogen gas for hydrogen powered vehicles, but since they have no market yet, I guess they'll just burn it. The other normal use would be to use the generated gas to deal with peak demands (i.e. burn the stored hydrogen to get back the electrical). The obvious problem is entropy as you're going to lose some energy each time you do the conversion, e.g. 100 kW electrical turns into 80 kW stored hydrogen which converts back to 70 kW electrical when burned... all numbers just illustrative to make a point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,140 Posts
The point I'm guessing is to replace 2% by volume of nat gas with emission free burning hydrogen saving some CO2. Using unused green power to produce it seems reasonable as there is no storage for this power anyway.

From the article
The facility, commissioned in 2018, uses excess renewable electricity from the Ontario grid to make hydrogen from water and store it.

And I believe Ontario is chock full of unused renewables.

I am curious if hydrogen will have comparable BTU output though. I know when we were in Polynesia no propane was available so we burned butane which sucks in comparison.

Another interesting thing ENB is doing is renewable natural gas....


With regulatory support, some utilities across Canada have set ambitious RNG goals, targeting a 5% blend of RNG in all-natural gas streams by 2025 and 10% by 2030. This would result in a 14-megatonne reduction in GHG emissions by 2030, or the equivalency of taking 3.1 million cars off the road.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,909 Posts
The point I'm guessing is to replace 2% by volume of nat gas with emission free burning hydrogen saving some CO2. Using unused green power to produce it seems reasonable as there is no storage for this power anyway.
The danger that @andrewf is talking about is that when we started putting ethanol blends into gasoline, it reduced the overall energy available in a liter of blended gas vs pure gas. So, if you had to travel 100 km, you may need 8 L of blended gas vs 7.3 L of pure gas (for example).
At 1 atm, and 25C, the energy density of hydrogen is 0.01005-0.01188 MJ/L vs natural gas at 0.0364 MJ/L. So a 2% hydrogen gas mixture would reduce the amount of energy available. The question then becomes: are you really burning the same amount of natural gas for heating if you have to burn more mixture to make up for the dilution?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,980 Posts
CO2 is very effective at blocking infrared radiation, but that only accounts for about 10% of the heat lost by a typical house. The rest of the heat loss is caused by convection and conduction, which CO2 has no effect on. So even if you could block 100% of the infrared radiation, you would only gain a 10% benefit.
That cannot be correct. According to the experts sunlight passes easily through the CO2, then it hits the earth and turns to heat, which is blocked by the CO2. If CO2 blocked infrared radiation but did not block heat, it would reflect sunlight back into space and let the heat from the earth radiate away, and there would be no greenhouse effect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,039 Posts
That cannot be correct. According to the experts sunlight passes easily through the CO2, then it hits the earth and turns to heat, which is blocked by the CO2. If CO2 blocked infrared radiation but did not block heat, it would reflect sunlight back into space and let the heat from the earth radiate away, and there would be no greenhouse effect.
Solar radiation has a shorter wavelength allowing it to easily bypass the CO2 molecule... infrared radiation has a longer wavelength, so more of it is blocked by the CO2 depending on the concentration of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere.
 
41 - 59 of 59 Posts
Top