this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2023
35 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

7188 readers
344 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Universities

💵 Finance / Shopping

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social and Culture

Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
35
Ottawa expected to release promised EV sales regulations Tuesday (www.cbc.ca)
submitted 10 months ago by bzarb8ni@lemm.ee to c/canada@lemmy.ca
45 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Sales targets meant to ensure automakers ramp up EV production to keep up with demand, says source

top 45 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] nik282000@lemmy.ca 17 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Unless the regulations are about forcing automakers to release economy level cars (less than $35K) not just home-theater-on-wheeles models, this isn't going to change much.

As wages fall farther behind Canada's insane cost of living no one is going to be able to afford a new EV (or we will end up with 25 year car mortgages). So the financial elite will get their EVs while the rest of us are left to fight for a dwindling supply of used ICEs for which there will be no parts and no manufacture support.

We don't need EVs we need affordable EVs. Get rid of the fucking home theater in the dash, offer a basic interior with manual windows, locks and seats, make a car that doesn't cripple you financially.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 7 points 10 months ago

I'm wondering if that's what this legislation will do.

It's focused on ensuring that a target % of all cars a manufacturer sells be electric. And in order to do that, they need to get more people to choose to buy electric.

They can achieve that by raising the prices of their ICE vehicles and selling less overall volume, but the proportion of EVs would be higher. or the seemingly easier option would be to create more cheaper EV options that people are interested in buying.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Plus, making those budget cars would be a little lighter (less motors and electronics), require less precious metals (less electronics), and therefore be more a little more energy effecient as well as cheaper to maintain (less electronics to replace).

[–] Mossheart@lemmy.ca 1 points 10 months ago

Fewer electronics to replace doesn't matter if we have no right to third party repairs. many EVs are locked down, so they have you over a barrel on replacement part pricing.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

There are many models under 35k after incentive, add to that the fuel economy and if you can afford to pay 35k + gas for a car, you can afford 40k after incentive for an electric car, especially if you plan on financing it, saving 2.5k a year in gas for five years, that's 12.5k saved in total.

[–] psvrh@lemmy.ca 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Most people can't afford $35K for a new car.

Fewer and fewer people can afford the lease or finance payments on a new car, period, and fewer people can afford homes where they can charge an EV, while landlords can max out the rent all they like without having to spend on frills like chargers.

Meanwhile, we're reducing taxes and shovelling grants at the rich to build housing that they won't build, that'll require people to buy cars that they can't afford because we aren't going to build that new housing in a way that's suited to public transit--which we aren't going to build anyway.

The housing/transport/fiscal-policy clusterfuck is fractally shortsighted: it looks shortsighted when you first look at, but it gets more and more shortsighted in new and interesting ways the closer you zoom in.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

But people do buy $35k new (and used) cars and after incentives the cheaper EV models are closer to $30k...

Look at the average car price in Canada at the moment, for used cars it's 35k!

"Most people" aren't people in their 20s/early 30s that haven't reached the peak of their career and just started their family.

Hell, if you want an EV I can get you a fully equipped used Leaf for 20k!

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

People buy those cars they can't or can barely afford because they have no other choice in the majority of Canadian cities due to car centric design.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

They could all buy a Mitsubishi Mirage for under 18k if that was an issue.

I think people underestimate others' financial means (and what will be their own financial means when they'll be in their 40s/50s).

In my 20s I could barely afford to keep my car running and was finding it expensive to pay 300$ for my apartment shared with two friends, in my late 30s I can buy a luxury car if I want, my job doesn't require more than a high-school diploma and I live next to Ottawa.

[–] psvrh@lemmy.ca 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

They could all buy a Mitsubishi Mirage for under 18k if that was an issue.

The Mirage being $18K, and being almost the last subcompact standing, is a symptom of the issue.

Like house prices, car prices went bonkers over the last decade as manufacturers raised the floor chasing margin. At around the start of the last decade, we had the Mirage, Fit, Yaris, Versa, Accent, Rio, Spark, Sonic, Fiesta, City Golf, 500 and Mazda2. Of that group, almost all of them are gone, as are many from the next step up (Focus, Cruze, Caliber, the non-GTI Golf, etc). Interestingly, the platforms aren't gone, they've just been jacked two inches and covered in plastic cladding.

Why? Because cheap credit made it easier to get people into something more expensive.

The average price is indicative of a captive market, rather similar to what we're seeing in housing, and it's going to get nastier as OEMs do not want to see 1979 or 2008 again, where they're forced to make do with lower margins. We'll see "tax incentives" and lowering of interest rates before then, just like we're seeing with housing, because we've collectively made the decision that people with money must not, ever, lose money--and the more money you have, the more it must be protected--but people without money deserve to be ruthlessly exploited.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

But most non luxury manufacturers sell cars under 25k, they mostly sell to young people, as they get older they buy more expensive cars.

You think the regular Golf got discontinued even if it was selling? No. Sales had been going down for a long time now, but look at that, the Jetta is still available, so maybe people just didn't want the compact hatchback but demand was still high for the compact sedan!

Take the Geo Metro in 95, base model was 10k back then. With 2% yearly inflation that's... 17 000 today! Will you look at that, same as the available equivalent, which is the Mirage!

[–] Mossheart@lemmy.ca 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I saw used 2013 Honda Fits going for 17k in BC last week. Is that mirage still available??

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

That's the MSRP, just go shopping

[–] Hypx@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The fundamental problem is that battery powered EVs, or BEVs, need vast amounts of raw material when manufactured. That basically guarantees that BEVs are never going to be cost effective once you get past small and short-ranged cars. That ensures that BEVs are simply not going to be the main type of cars. They are really ideal for things like e-bikes or golf carts, not larger vehicles like SUVs or commercial vehicles.

In reality, society needs to focus on non-BEV forms of zero emissions transportation. Ideally, that means more mass transit or walkable neighborhoods. But for situations where the car is unavoidable, it is almost certain that we have to find a true replacement for conventional ICE cars. If not e-fuels, then something like hydrogen cars.

[–] nik282000@lemmy.ca 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The "vast amounts of raw material" used in battery manufacturing are nothing compared to the raw petroleum required to fuel and lubricate an ICE for it's lifetime. Also the metals used in batteries can be nearly 100% recycled, forever, once an industry gets built up around it. We could do it today but the process as it is, is energy intense (solved by using renewable energy sources). If the rest of the vehicle was designed by non-shitheads it's possible to have a car that can be economically torn down and recycled in a closed loop like beer cans and bottles.

But no ethically designed car will ever be sold in Canada for the same reason that walkable cities and mass transit will never be prioritized. Crooked, ineffective politicians and a crazy vocal right wing.

[–] Hypx@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago

That's actually a dubious claim, given how much fossil fuels are needed in the mining and production of battery related materials. Same is true of battery recycling. It also needs significant amounts of fossil fuels.

But the main point is that the alternatives, such as e-fuels or hydrogen, require nearly zero fossil fuels or problematic raw materials. Even steel can be made from hydrogen-based reduction instead of needing fossil fuels. So it is a massive improvement over BEVs, in a way that BEVs probably can never hope to match.

The ideal solution will always be getting rid of the car entirely. We should always be pushing all alternatives. But we should not be trapped in the "EV now!" mentality for the car itself. It is not really solving any problem except for a minor reduction in oil consumption.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 12 points 10 months ago (3 children)

We've still got to contend with the horrible environmental effects of tire dust - EV or ICE.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

And the urban sprawl from car dependancy, the salting of the roads, stormwater run off from roads, the wasted urban space that is massive surface parking lots, and noise pollution from the tires. EVs solve very few problems related to cars.

[–] OminousOrange@lemmy.ca 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That's really the biggest issue that's unfortunately not at the forefront. Sure, EVs are much more energy efficient and therefore less polluting in the form of fossil fuel burn, but the way we travel is incredibly inefficient given the available technologies. Our country was literally built on the railroad, yet there is very little reasonable passenger rail alternatives in much of the country.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

EVs are much more energy efficient

Isn't the lifetime difference something like 30% better than ICE? It's definitely better, but it isn't significantly better.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Turns out bringing 3000+ pounds of steel with you everywhere you go is ineffecient regardless how it is powered.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

I've heard cars described as metal overcoats. People slap them on for the slightest reason.

[–] OminousOrange@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I'll use my two, similar sized cars as an example (Subaru Outback and Hyundai Ioniq 5). Typical driving gets me around 8 L/100km in the Outback and 20 kWh/100km in the Ioniq. This NRCan site gives a conversion factor of 8.9 kWh/L of gasoline.

So, the Ioniq, at 20 kWh/100km is then about 72% more efficient than the Subaru at its equivalent 71.2 kWh/100km.

Even when considering lifetime emissions, EVs still have roughly 50% less emissions than ICE vehicles.

However, going back to my original point, person vehicles are still incredibly inefficient overall, given the potential alternatives.

[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Is there any notable development on that front?

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 9 points 10 months ago

Trains? Trains are great - and buses produce a lot less tire dust per passenger.

[–] psvrh@lemmy.ca 4 points 10 months ago

Building communities that are walkable? I mean, we could try that, but it wouldn't make rich people richer.

[–] Mossheart@lemmy.ca 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

One crisis at a time PLEASE. Affordable EVs first, THEN flying cars.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Trains. Trains are the solution.

The answer has been right in front of us the entire time!

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This is the best summary I could come up with:

CBC News has learned that Ottawa will release final regulations it says will ensure that all new passenger cars sold in Canada by 2035 are zero-emission vehicles, a senior government source said.

The source — who was not authorized to speak publicly — said the new regulations are meant to ensure that automakers produce enough affordable zero-emissions vehicles to meet the demand.

"Instead of attempting to dictate what individuals have to purchase, we suggest that the government create the right set of circumstances to stimulate demand," said Tim Reuss of the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association.

The Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, which represents Ford, Stellantis and General Motors, said automakers are committed to electrifying their production.

According to the draft regulatory analysis, the policy will be challenging for "northern and remote communities" and it notes that the government "is continuing to evaluate measures that could help facilitate this transition."

"EVs are a big money saver for Canadian households," said Joanna Kyriazis, the director of public affairs for Clean Energy Canada.

The original article contains 893 words, the summary contains 157 words. Saved 82%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] Immersive_Matthew@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago

I welcome this, but I feel we should have had this years ago for a 2025 zero emissions date. 2035 is a decade or really more too late. If many countries did this in the past, the entire EV I would have moved forward much faster and we would be in the final phases of gas engines now. Oh well. Better late than never though so good for Canada.