The part these automotive executives are conveniently not mentioning is that the EV mandate already allows auto manufacturers to get out of meeting the quotas if they build out charging infrastructure instead. They can get credits for building charging stations to go against current and future years where they miss their commitments.

AFAIK, in Canada there is currently only one auto manufacturer that is building out charging capacity, and that’s Tesla (who don’t even need that credit, as they only make EVs anyway!).

The Carney Government needs to tell these automakers that they need to get shovels in the ground and start building out that infrastructure. That will be good for Canadian jobs, and will increase the likelihood their customers will choose an EV in the future. The two Provinces where EV charging is easy and prevalent (BC and Quebec) already have the most EVs on the road (as a proportion of all vehicles) out of all the Provinces — so we know building more charging capacity leads to more sales. I’m no fan of Tesla (I drive a Hyundai IONIQ 5), but they realized early on they couldn’t just wait for others to build out charging capacity for them if they wanted to sell EVs — the other North American auto manufacturers need to realize that and get on to building out that capacity. Then they’ll sell cars, and then they’ll meet the mandates.

Shoves in ground, CEOs. And do us a favour and buy Canadian — we have several EVSE manufacturers in Canada making some really good kit to choose from.

You bring good points! My concern about battery life is more specifically about the toll fast charging puts on a battery, and such a car would be supercharging for most of its existence.

I did rent out a dual motor long range IONIQ 5 for a test trip, I really enjoyed it, but I was stuck for an hour at a fast charger at a random closed Ford dealership off the side of the 20 on the way back because I couldn’t charge at my destination in Levis during the day.

I also had a LOT of issues with Electrify Canada and Flo, from non-functional stations to stations where the sessions just wouldn’t end. It happened twice, and the second time it happened, it took support (I forget which company, I think Flo) a whole WEEK to close the charging session properly. During that time, I could not open any other charge session, and had to call support every time I wanted to charge.

Otherwise, Quebec’s charging infrastructure is okay, but the lack of fast chargers (350kw+) make it difficult to do long trips without stopping constantly, and northern Ontario / Quebec is basically devoid of charging stations.

Nope! Not going to be a captive market for murican car makers.

The future of automobiles ain’t going to be ICE vehicles, so that would literally be sacrificing the future of Canada’s Auto Industry.

The last thing any nation should do is follow the MAGA crowd in sinking the future of their nation as a modern high-tech economy in the XXI century.

He needs to put the canadian people first and hold steadfast on the 2030 ice ban. Don’t let America and the legacy automotive industry degrade Canada.

The guy next door totaled his car you should too!

The username checks out for the situation. We need to keep our car energy supply directly within Canada.

Trump is looking more wrong as time goes on. Pathetic man who lose his power eventually.

EVs made in US and its allied colonies are already at price parity with their ICE versions before rebates. EVs have much higher performance, comfort, and operational costs not subject to geopolitical/extortionist industries, and even empower individuals to escape electric monopoly extortion, and in near future, cooperate with utilities/society to permit much more renewables, and profit from your EV through electricity arbitrage.

EVs get cheaper every year. Infrastructure supporting them improves every year. Protectionism for oil companies, and legacy ICE that oil companies depend on, is a terrible private and social investment strategy. It is not just climate terrorism to protect evil from competition, policy requires ever more protection as the rest of the world improves EV value proposition even more. Insurance costs skyrocketing as planet boils is further made worse.

Whether or not credits are kept, mandate should be obvious, because investment in EVs or micromobility is not only obvious, but by 2030/2035 gives everyone plenty of time to get there.

For Carney to cave on EVs, he needs to deny global warming, and explicitly endorse the climate terrorism policies that have effectively been in place through war distractions/priorities over a sustainable world ever since global warming was understood.

US policy designed to destroy Canada’s auto sector would furthermore lead to recommendations against submission to a future where Canadians can still only buy US branded gas guzzlers. I’d rather see nuclear annihilation threats made against the US instead of yet another act of cooperative submission, for explicit purposes of destruction of human sustainability, and cooperation in Canadian auto production destruction, being considered by Canada.

Hey car companies, know what’s really impossible? Me ever behind the wheel of a gas powered vehicle ever again!

Only the rare Blue hydrogen is renewable

Green Hydrogen is made by electrolysis of water = use electricity, get Hydrogen. No emissions. Green. This technology is mature enough to be deployed at mass scale, and produce localized stored energy that can be transported/exported. Costs are $2/kg when using “near surplus” solar at 2c/kwh input cost. For a FC vehicle, this is equivalent to $1/gallon gasoline in range.

Blue H2 is not green or renewable. While the process gas reaction can be separated to capture/split the CO2 gas produced, that CO2 needs to be transported and pumped underground, and the heat required for the reaction generally is produce by NG combustion that needs a chimney, and produces emissions.

H2 is not a dead end technology. It is ahead of its time, as solar penetration to provide enough energy every day is solar that produces surpluses on most days, and is not yet here, or even in China yet. Ever more solar does require a monetization path past electrical saturation, and green H2 is the best path for its chemical applications, transportation, energy backup, and rocket fuel.

Thanks, I accidentally switched the terms!

I’m sure H2 will eventually become viable, but right now it’s very much being pushed in the hopes that blue and gray H2 can be sold to the masses by fossil fuel companies.

They’re not wrong.

Ive owned an EV for 7 years now and it does some things really well and its not very good at others. Its not SUPERIOR to my gas vehicles, its just different.

Its ludicrous to tell Canadians that they can ONLY buy EVs at a certain point. It doesnt make sense to force that change when they dont suit a lot of applications. For example there are currently NO EVs that are great at pulling trailers, they lose far too much range when hauling. They also lose 20 to 40% of their range in winter. They also take considerably longer to charge on a road trip than a gas car takes to fill up and thats only IF you can find a convenient charger, its available, its working and you have signed up for the correct payment app - not nearly as simple as using a gas station.

They ARE good for commuting especially if you live in a city. And theres no denying that they are far less costly to maintain. My little EV has cost a TOTAL of $400 in 7 years. Thats amazingly low. And its very reliable. Nothing to check, just unplug it and drive it. But its still not my first choice for many tasks.

Buyers aren’t stupid, they will buy what they need and what suits their lifestyle, not what the gov tells them they need.

Its ludicrous to tell Canadians that they can ONLY buy EVs at a certain point.

The goal isn’t to force consumers to buy one. It’s to force manufacturers to work out the flaws you mentioned and produce a better EV instead of focusing on out-dated technology. That’s why the cut-over date is so far out. They want to give them time to work on the technology.

But there are some things about EVs that cannot be overcome because science. Like the fact that gasoline holds far more energy for its weight than batteries ever can. Which is why things like the Tesla semi is a flop. Because to get the range you get out of two saddle tanks of diesel the semi would have to carry much more weight in batteries than is practical and charge times and kW input would be astronomical.

The same goes for cars but to a lesser extent. We CAN make them go far (a Lucid EV just set a record at 1205 km on a single charge) but that car costs well over 150,000 because of the massive amount of batteries needed.

Then there’s the electrical infrastructure issue. Most EV owners charge at home, but if EVERY household had an EV there will be a significant new draw on our electrical grid. If everyone charges at night thats not a huge deal but obviously if everyone had an EV there going to be a lot of people charging during the day too, especially on trips. We’d have to add a lot of power to our grid and EVERY power source requires some kind of environmental cost, the question is only how much.

But there are some things about EVs that cannot be overcome because science. Like the fact that gasoline holds far more energy for its weight than batteries ever can.

That’s true for our current batteries. Where does science say we’ll never be able to make batteries with a higher energy density than fossil fuels?

This is merely one of the limitations I mentioned manufacturers need to work on.

We’d have to add a lot of power to our grid and EVERY power source requires some kind of environmental cost, the question is only how much.

Right, which is why we need to build out renewable capacity as we go. By forcing EVs onto the market it would spur home owners to add solar panels to their roofs. The rise in demand would increase new production. Again, that’s why it’s a long term phase out rather than cutting over suddenly.

Also it’s far more efficient to generate power in large facilities rather than in lots of little ones. It’s better to have a few larger power generation plants rather than every car having its own. It’s the economy of scale. One generator that produces enough power for 100 vehicles is more efficient than 100 generators powering one vehicle each. Transmission distance lowers that efficiency, so hopefully those sources can be clean and local to where they’re being used.

Fuck Carney if he caves 1 milimetre on this fascist bullshit.

Mass transit is great for cities and that’s it right now. If you live in an area with less than 500,000 people mass transit isn’t happening for awhile. EVs give us clean powered vehicles for the interim which - optimistically - will still be 20-30 years.

Stopping EVs now is a bad idea. Use them to leverage electric renewable infrastucture.

For cities, though, yeah minimal cars is better.

Where does science say we’ll never be able to make batteries with a higher energy density than fossil fuels?

Well nowhere except that the mandate is trying to force the changeover in five years time, and despite multiple announcements about ‘new’ ‘long range’ batteries, no ones been able to make the quantum leap needed. And its not a minor gap: Gasoline stores about 47.5 MJ/kg, while lithium-ion batteries typically store around 0.3 MJ/kg. This means gasoline provides roughly 100 times more energy per unit of weight. Thats a huge leap for batteries to overcome.

Also, EVs are competing against gas cars but gas cars are also improving a great deal. It used to be getting 25 mpg in a sedan was impressive enough, but I just talked to an owner with a Maverick hybrid who said on her best run she got almost 70 mpg. Incredible for a small truck.

Hybrids may be the answer. Full battery EVs dont do everything and gas cars have issues, but hybrids bridge the gap. The main problem there being that now you have to maintain two drive systems, so its not exactly a recipe for easy maintenance as they age.

Somewhere with 500,000 people can definitely make use of transit. Maybe not mass but definitely trams, buses and regional rail. Also active infrastructure like bike lanes (granted provinces seem to be at war with cyclists recently).