Self-driving vehicles

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

I get free water in public washrooms but I have to pay for water at home. Is that a permanent subsidy? Many of these charging stations won't be free exactly, especially the ones downtown where you'll have to pay a parking fee. There's the incentive for the private sector right there — install a charging station and EVs will pay to park at your garage.

So lets call this what it is.... those that choose to forgo a vehicle and use public transit will now be subsidizing drivers through their hydro bills..

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by HighwayStar

So lets call this what it is.... those that choose to forgo a vehicle and use public transit will now be subsidizing drivers through their hydro bills..

Nothing new. One way or another non-drivers have been paying drivers bills for decades... From validated parking to sprawl and global warming.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Arguably true, but these subsidies do encourage more people who were on the fence before to make the plunge, thus accelerating the rate of EV adoption. That's the essence of the government's climate change strategy; its focused on maximizing progress on environmental objectives. This is arguably the most effective way to truly create a low carbon economy; past initiatives (like BC's tax redistribution scheme) have focused too much on economic or social goals, which compromises environmental effectiveness.

Free overnight charging may very well stay permanently even once EVs have majority market share as it's also a tool to encourage people to charge their cars at a time when grid load is low; however, exempting EVs from sales tax is probably going to be phased out once EVs become commonplace.

I don't see anything here designed to create a low carbon economy. In fact the Government is investing billions expanding commuter-oriented highways and expanding access to carpool lanes to encourage more people to drive.

These are gimmicks that cost almost nothing (because there is so little demand for electric cars) and allow the government to claim to have a climate strategy. Whether or not electric cars are actually adopted will depend on things like price and range, which has little to do with the policies of a single jurisdiction.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by HighwayStar

So lets call this what it is.... those that choose to forgo a vehicle and use public transit will now be subsidizing drivers through their hydro bills..

Maybe, maybe not. It isn't clear where the money to subsidize the night time charging will come from (and it likely never will be clear). It could come from increases in hydro rates or it could come from other government revenue (taxes).

I would like to highlight that all forms of transportation are subsidized by the government. This can be indirect in the form of road/sidewalk construction and maintenance (including snow removal) or direct subsidies. Many people falsely assume that licencing and gas taxes cover those costs, but they don't even come close.

The freight railways are probably the least subsidized form of transportation (they even have to pay for their own police force). It is a tribute to their efficiency that they can compete with the trucking industry,which is heavily subsided in that they can use public roads at minimal cost.

People complain when a form of transportation that they don't use gets subsidies but want more money for their preferred form of transportation.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Maybe, maybe not. It isn't clear where the money to subsidize the night time charging will come from (and it likely never will be clear). It could come from increases in hydro rates or it could come from other government revenue (taxes).

I would like to highlight that all forms of transportation are subsidized by the government. This can be indirect in the form of road/sidewalk construction and maintenance (including snow removal) or direct subsidies. Many people falsely assume that licencing and gas taxes cover those costs, but they don't even come close.

The freight railways are probably the least subsidized form of transportation (they even have to pay for their own police force). It is a tribute to their efficiency that they can compete with the trucking industry,which is heavily subsided in that they can use public roads at minimal cost.

People complain when a form of transportation that they don't use gets subsidies but want more money for their preferred form of transportation.

The problem comes if electric cars become a significant part of the market. These subsidies become substantial whether through taxes or increased hydro rates.

I know there are all kinds of subsidies already out there (in some cases amounting to nothing more than social engineering), but the solution to this is not creating even more subsidies or an even more complicated web of subsidies.

For decades, Ontario Hydro was subsidized by the taxpayer. Mike Harris eliminated that tax subsidy. In the long run, this is one policy that I agreed with from that government. We should not go back to another form of hydro subsidy. We already saw what was happening with the enormous subsidies that were temporarily given to alternate hydro suppliers and the unjustified incentives this was creating for excessively priced power.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

I get free water in public washrooms but I have to pay for water at home. Is that a permanent subsidy? Many of these charging stations won't be free exactly, especially the ones downtown where you'll have to pay a parking fee. There's the incentive for the private sector right there — install a charging station and EVs will pay to park at your garage.

There is a bit of a difference between water consumption in public washrooms and free public access to recharge your EV. The former is a biological need of all humans and besides, most 'public' washrooms are actually operated by private business, which are paying for the water. There is no human necessity to have an EV, when there are all kinds of alternate methods of transportation.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by roger1818

It isn't clear where the money to subsidize the night time charging will come from (and it likely never will be clear). It could come from increases in hydro rates or it could come from other government revenue (taxes)

Its coming from cap and trade revenues. And as the electricity sector is exempt from paying for carbon permits (logic is that it's already done enough with the coal phase out), the cost definitely won't be coming from people's hydro bills.

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Its coming from cap and trade revenues. And as the electricity sector is exempt from paying for carbon permits (logic is that it's already done enough with the coal phase out), the cost definitely won't be coming from people's hydro bills.

Which is absurd given the environmental destruction required to produce wind turbine magnets and batteries, not to mention the carbon footprint required to manufacture and transport all that concrete and steel... for *any* type of electricity generation. And to a lesser extent, the deforestation required to install Hydro lines.

I'll happily eat my words if someone can point me to any research which shows this analysis has been done and it's negligible..

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by HighwayStar

Which is absurd given the environmental destruction required to produce wind turbine magnets and batteries, not to mention the carbon footprint required to manufacture and transport all that concrete and steel... for *any* type of electricity generation. And to a lesser extent, the deforestation required to install Hydro lines.

I'll happily eat my words if someone can point me to any research which shows this analysis has been done and it's negligible..

Wikipedia has a decent summary of life-cycle GHG emissions for various types of power generation. None of them are zero, but the non-carbon ones are an order of magnitude smaller.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-c...energy_sources

I haven't seen a life cycle analysis of electric cars, nor of power lost in transmission. I also wonder what the drain rate is on the batteries.

[McC]

Originally Posted by acottawa

None of them are zero, but the non-carbon ones are an order of magnitude smaller.

except for a small number of extremely aberrant hydro projects that for whatever reason were nearly 100x the median and more than 2x as bad as the worst coal plants.

(theory: they were built by cows operating coal-fired equipment in the heart of a rainforest that was clearcut)

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by McC

except for a small number of extremely aberrant hydro projects that for whatever reason were nearly 100x the median and more than 2x as bad as the worst coal plants.

(theory: they were built by cows operating coal-fired equipment in the heart of a rainforest that was clearcut)

I think it is methane, which can be very high depending on the project.

http://ecowatch.com/2015/10/06/hydropower-methane-bomb/

[McC]

I did not know that, thanks!

[HighwayStar]

Good info for digestion guys... thanks..

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think it is methane, which can be very high depending on the project.

http://ecowatch.com/2015/10/06/hydropower-methane-bomb/

From the article:

How Does Hydropower Cause Methane Emissions?

The principal environmental menace of hydroelectric dams is caused by organic material—vegetation, sediment and soil—that flows from rivers into reservoirs and decomposes, emitting methane and carbon dioxide into the water and the air throughout the generation cycle. Studies indicate that in tropical environments and high-sediment areas, where organic material is highest, dams can release more greenhouse gas than coal-fired power plants.

The thing I don't get is if the organic material is flowing into the reservoir from somewhere upstream, wouldn't it have flowed further down the river anyway and decomposed elsewhere and produced the same amount of methane? In that case, the dam isn't creating new methane, is is just changing where it is being released.

If they are talking about organic matter that was above water before the dam was built and is now underwater in the reservoir, that is a different story, but even then,

1. There is a finite amount that will eventually be depleted,
2. They could clear the organic material from the area that will be flooded for the reservoir, and deal with it more effectively.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

From the article:



The thing I don't get is if the organic material is flowing into the reservoir from somewhere upstream, wouldn't it have flowed further down the river anyway and decomposed elsewhere and produced the same amount of methane? In that case, the dam isn't creating new methane, is is just changing where it is being released.

If they are talking about organic matter that was above water before the dam was built and is now underwater in the reservoir, that is a different story, but even then,

1. There is a finite amount that will eventually be depleted,
2. They could clear the organic material from the area that will be flooded for the reservoir, and deal with it more effectively.

I'm not a scientist and stand to be corrected, but I would imagine one difference is that a reservoir wouldn't have a full ecosystem' so organic material that might have ended up in the ocean and the food chain instead gets trapped behind a dam and decomposes (producing methane).

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by HighwayStar

Which is absurd given the environmental destruction required to produce wind turbine magnets and batteries, not to mention the carbon footprint required to manufacture and transport all that concrete and steel... for *any* type of electricity generation. And to a lesser extent, the deforestation required to install Hydro lines.

I'll happily eat my words if someone can point me to any research which shows this analysis has been done and it's negligible..

The phase out of coal and the introduction of wind has made a big difference. Carbon emissions from Ontario's electricity sector in 2012 were less than half of what they were in 2007:

[1overcosc]

This chart is also interesting. Decarbonization and the move to cleaner tech is happening across the board. The freight transportation sector performed almost as well as the electricity sector when the past 25 years are looked at in their entirety:

[Buggys]

Wind power might put less carbon into the atmosphere, but it isn't all that clean either. The turbines use a lot of rare earth magnets, which are environmentally harmful to extract.

http://www.bccrwe.com/index.php/8-ne...or-environment

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26687605

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Buggys

Wind power might put less carbon into the atmosphere, but it isn't all that clean either. The turbines use a lot of rare earth magnets, which are environmentally harmful to extract.

http://www.bccrwe.com/index.php/8-ne...or-environment

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26687605

Also, wind turbines are killing a lot of our song birds.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Also, wind turbines are killing a lot of our song birds.

Domestic cats kill more song birds than wind turbines do, and they don't even produce any useful electricity.