Electric vehicles ... climate change..

[tweety]

I for one am very excited about many of the alternative energy technologies being considered or tested. However, last I checked, diesel fuel was not considered alternative, and electricity is not an energy source, so I fail to see how this attempt at alternative energy is either alternative or energy?

And unless you are the type who wants to just put alternators on the wheels of your electric car to charge the batteries endlessly, you might want to consider the laws of thermodynamics. They are converting diesel fuel to electricity, then transferring that electricity to a car, where it is converted into chemical energy in batteries, then converted back to electric to transfer it to a motor where it is then converted to mechanical energy. The only thing they are going to learn is that you can't break the laws of thermodynamics, not sure how many times we need to prove that all over again?

Did you read the article?

"The 3,000 kilometer trip across the Nullarbor from Perth to Adelaide is such an achievement for an EV that it’s practically a news story each time one makes it. Electric Car owners carry a chip about not being able to drive across the country like any real car owner could. So Jon Edwards, a retired engineer from Perth, set up this test site in his backyard. He wanted to know if it could be a realistic stop-gap for our far remote roads."

If you have ever been to Australia, you will then understand what the word remote means. But in Perth and Adelaide you can use the electric car and charge no problem. It's overcoming journeys.

[LEP]

I have driven the nullabor twice. The only way it is 3,000 km long is to drive it twice.

But I get the point that the greatest limiting factor for an EV is batteries.

To be honest, I will consider an EV once it gets more range.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Did you read the article?

"The 3,000 kilometer trip across the Nullarbor from Perth to Adelaide is such an achievement for an EV that it’s practically a news story each time one makes it. Electric Car owners carry a chip about not being able to drive across the country like any real car owner could. So Jon Edwards, a retired engineer from Perth, set up this test site in his backyard. He wanted to know if it could be a realistic stop-gap for our far remote roads."

If you have ever been to Australia, you will then understand what the word remote means. But in Perth and Adelaide you can use the electric car and charge no problem. It's overcoming journeys.

Yes, I had read the entire article and quite a few of the comments before I responded, thanks for posting it. That is why I responded as I did. What can possibly be learned by this experiment? He is supposedly an engineer, yet obviously missed every thermodynamics class, if he still needed to do math to try to prove that taking all these extra steps will somehow be more efficient. To say nothing of the folly and hypocrisy of taking an EV for a 3000 km joyride just to say you did it, even if it was diesel powered most of the way, I thought these were being touted as the way to save the world, this adventure is the farthest thing from that.

[chuckChuck]

A5, if you had a been alive in the early 1900s when cars were replacing horsepower, I am sure you would have been sitting on your horse or in your buggy telling the rest of the world that ICE cars will never work because fossil fuels are only stored solar energy and carbon from the ancient past. And solar energy doesn't work right! LOL

Its a good thing humanity doesn't listen to all the naysayers or otherwise we would still be living in damp caves and chasing down our lunch on foot with a spear.

[fjlip]

And if we listen to DOOMSAYERS? chuck and Greta, McKenna....

[AlbertaFarmer5]

A5, if you had a been alive in the early 1900s when cars were replacing horsepower, I am sure you would have been sitting on your horse or in your buggy telling the rest of the world that ICE cars will never work because fossil fuels are only stored solar energy and carbon from the ancient past. And solar energy doesn't work right! LOL

Chuck, are you even on the same thread? We were discussing the futility of using a diesel powered generator to allow an EV to accomplish what an ICE has been accomplishing all along. An EV, whose sole purpose is to end the use of fossil fuels. And they have proven that yes, an EV can accomplish the same thing as an ICE, if you power the EV with ICE along the way, entirely defeating the purpose of the EV. There is a reason that humanity has progressed to more energy dense, sources, not less, and this event just shows why.

Its a good thing humanity doesn't listen to all the naysayers or otherwise we would still be living in damp caves and chasing down our lunch on foot with a spear.

Do you not read the drivel from the sources you post? THAT IS THEIR GOAL. Decarbonization, Deindustrialization, Dematerialization( just read that one yesterday), Depopulation etc.

[tweety]

Yes, I had read the entire article and quite a few of the comments before I responded, thanks for posting it. That is why I responded as I did. What can possibly be learned by this experiment? He is supposedly an engineer, yet obviously missed every thermodynamics class, if he still needed to do math to try to prove that taking all these extra steps will somehow be more efficient. To say nothing of the folly and hypocrisy of taking an EV for a 3000 km joyride just to say you did it, even if it was diesel powered most of the way, I thought these were being touted as the way to save the world, this adventure is the farthest thing from that.

I did find it interesting that the diesel to electric was still a bit better mileage then just burning the diesel. I suppose the gain would be that an electric motor when cruising doesn't have to overcome the friction a diesel would make while only making a few hp to keep the vehicle rolling. No one will save the world with electric cars, but we do need a start to increase efficiency. Look at how the gas motor has improved over the last 100 years. The only reason you are not burning non renewables shouldn't be to save the world, rather pollution reduction, health, and environmental benefits. Gotta start somewhere, not just give up because it isn't 10 times better then a gas motor.

Charging stations are woefully inadequate here in western canada as well. I noticed Mountain equipment Coop in edmonton has them outside their store and is primo parking in a busy area.

[rumrocks]

I compare switching from the fossil fuel economy to a renewable energy based economy to omitting two fuel lines to their respective injectors on a six cylinder diesel. Efficiency will slow down . . . . .

- Transport truck load weights will be down because of battery weight, although the difference is not as great as most would think, engine and transmission eliminated. But I don't understand how truck stops will be able to supply enough energy to recharge 400 trucks overnight (solar). The power transmission lines and the natural gas generators ( not renewable ) will be tested.

- Agriculture equipment would in most cases continue to be fossil, impractical to move equipment to recharging stations at night ( solar ).

Where is all the electric energy coming from to replace the diesel, gasoline and coal energy. Natural gas can only produce so much, many countries don't have access to natural gas, solar and wind are comparable to a bread and water diet. Nuclear plants, very very expensive.

Consumers may not like the added cost to going greener, but it all comes down to, is burning fossil fuel actually causing negative changes to our weather patterns, but as always man and Catherine _ _ _ _ ed it up by changing historic weather data here and others around the world for various selfish reasons because it didn't back-up their cause.

This government is on steroids regarding weather change, entirely I believe by Mr. Butts who has convinced other members to join his ideology, I hope this is a short term blemish in Canadian history.

If there is a problem, yes lets start to fix it, but you can't send all the cavalry full charge down the hill if you see a candle light at the bottom of the valley. Most mature people have tire wear on their rodeo truck so they naturally know this already, as opposed to the non-rugged group in Ottawa.

This conversion from fossil to green will come from consumers, industries and mature, common sense governments who use a calculator on a hourly basis.

[samhill]

For those who are convinced of tragic man made global warming it would seem a primary remedy would be ZPG. Unfortunately everyone in the world requires the necessities of life, and human pop growth is the problem. So, more of everything, including cremation.

[tweety]

I have driven the nullabor twice. The only way it is 3,000 km long is to drive it twice.

But I get the point that the greatest limiting factor for an EV is batteries.

To be honest, I will consider an EV once it gets more range.

i'm assuming it's there and back. Me too, the Tesla is quite the car. E motorbikes are another serious contender for fun - but quite costly.

[LEP]

[QUOTE=tweety;424919]

Direct subsidies to oil and gas companies 3.3 Billion. Some of the bigger ones.

Subsidy name Who gives it? Who gets it? How much is it worth?*
Flow-through shares** Canada Oil and gas companies CAD 265 million
Direct spending & budgetary transfers*** Canada Oil and gas companies CAD 112 million
Crown royalty reductions Alberta Oil and gas companies CAD 1.162 billion
Tax exemptions for certain fuels & uses in industry Alberta Industry CAD 298 million
Royalty reductions, including deep drilling and infrastructure credits† British Columbia Oil and gas companies CAD 631 million
Reduced tax for aviation fuel Ontario Aviation Industry CAD 292 million
Tax exemption for coloured fuels used in agriculture Ontario Agricultural industry CAD 248 million
Fuel tax exemptions and reductions ‡ Quebec Industry and other consumers CAD 301 million

5.3 trillion worldwide. That buys a lot of battery research.

So to be clear actual direct subsidies to oil and gas is $112 million.

Flow throughs were developed for and are used far greater by Mining companies. They benefit investors directly not companies. Royalty reductions are in place because alot of the drilling activity wouldn't happen without said incentive.

Saying a Tax exemption for Ontario Aviation and Ag industry a direct subsidy to oil companies is like saying the GM bailout was a direct subsidy as well. Pretty big stretch. But to be fair they are allowed to use dyed diesel in drilling rigs as the fuel is not used to roll down a road.

I think this is like the laundry list of uncosted Liberal Election promises "They just don't add up"

[chuckChuck]

There are several tax breaks and drilling incentives for the oil industry in each province. Tax breaks are the same as giving direct subsidies.

As well there are all the hidden environmental and health costs from the pollution and carbon emissions that are paid for by taxpayers.

Canada has lower royalty rates than many developing nations.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2017/oct/26/revealed-oil-giants-pay-billions-less-tax-in-canada-than-abroad

"Revealed: oil giants pay billions less tax in Canada than abroad

Data shows companies made much higher payments to developing countries in 2016 than to Canadian, provincial governments

taxes its oil and gas companies at a fraction of the rate they are taxed abroad, including by countries ranked among the world’s most corrupt, according to an analysis of public data by the Guardian.

The low rate that oil companies pay in Canada represents billions of dollars in potential revenue lost, which an industry expert who looked at the data says is a worrying sign that the country may be “a kind of tax haven for our own companies.”

The countries where oil companies paid higher rates of taxes, royalties and fees per barrel in 2016 include Nigeria, Indonesia, Ivory Coast and the UK.

“I think it will come as a surprise to most Canadians, including a lot of politicians, that Canada is giving oil companies a cut-rate deal relative to other countries,” said Keith Stewart, an energy analyst with Greenpeace.

Companies like Chevron Canada paid almost three times as much to Nigeria and almost seven times as much to Indonesia as it did to Canadian, provincial and municipal governments.

Chevron used to run its Nigeria and Indonesia projects out of the U.S., but after allegations that they evaded billions in taxes, their operations were moved to Canada."

[LEP]

[QUOTE=chuckChuck;425116]There are several tax breaks and drilling incentives for the oil industry in each province. Tax breaks are the same as giving direct subsidies.

As well there are all the hidden environmental and health costs from the pollution and carbon emissions that are paid for by taxpayers.

Canada has lower royalty rates than many developing nations.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2017/oct/26/revealed-oil-giants-pay-billions-less-tax-in-canada-than-abroad

"Revealed: oil giants pay billions less tax in Canada than abroad

Data shows companies made much higher payments to developing countries in 2016 than to Canadian, provincial governments

taxes its oil and gas companies at a fraction of the rate they are taxed abroad, including by countries ranked among the world’s most corrupt, according to an analysis of public data by the Guardian.

The low rate that oil companies pay in Canada represents billions of dollars in potential revenue lost, which an industry expert who looked at the data says is a worrying sign that the country may be “a kind of tax haven for our own companies.”

The countries where oil companies paid higher rates of taxes, royalties and fees per barrel in 2016 include Nigeria, Indonesia, Ivory Coast and the UK.

“I think it will come as a surprise to most Canadians, including a lot of politicians, that Canada is giving oil companies a cut-rate deal relative to other countries,” said Keith Stewart, an energy analyst with Greenpeace.

Companies like Chevron Canada paid almost three times as much to Nigeria and almost seven times as much to Indonesia as it did to Canadian, provincial and municipal governments.

Chevron used to run its Nigeria and Indonesia projects out of the U.S., but after allegations that they evaded billions in taxes, their operations were moved to

Ok Chucky. Here's the deal, a barrel of oil is only worth x. Now if you pay $3 an hour for labour versus $40, I guess you have more available to pay a higher royalty.

[the big wheel]

The last oil boom in Saskatchewan proved in spades that the royalties were way way too low for the costs that you encurr from the boom itself. More roads hospitals etc the rest of us are still paying for it while the oil companies pocketed the cash.
PST on everything.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Agreed that royalties should have been higher. But unfortunately we don't exist in a vacuum, most of these companies have assets all over the world, and will spend their money where the total net returns are the best. In this country, where we saddle them with exorbitant regulatory costs, delays in approvals, taxes, safety and environmental costs, payroll taxes, uncertainty, and deny their product access to the world market( forcing them to accept far lower values), the only way to entice them to spend here instead of lower cost environments is to level the playing field through royalties.

The law of unintended consequences of all socialist policies.