EVs should replace cars that need to be replaced, let’s not re-create the ecological disaster that was “cash 4 junkers”.

And yes, they should go alongside a large reduction in total vehicles on the road using practical, fast, accessible, clean (as in maintained) electric and cheap public transit subsidized mostly by car owners and in small part by other taxes.

Let’s reduce traffic and traffic violence by reducing the total number of vehicles from the road, making driver’s ed more complete and stricter, and gently discouraging people in high-density, transit-friendly cities from owning personal vehicles.

We will also see the costs of road maintenance go down, unused lanes that can be reclaimed, and less asphalt to absorb heat and keep the earth from draining properly, all while keeping the remaining car traffic relatively efficient, with less idling and faster time to destination while requiring lower speeds, which EVs excel at.

Sorry, I’ve ranted all over this thread, but I feel very strongly about a balanced and supported approach to mass transit, car dependence reduction and picking the right usage model (car pool, car share, rental, ownership) and car size for your needs.

Hydrogen powered motion technology is a fat cope from the fossil fuel industry. Most hydrogen is either blue (bio) or gray (fossil) hydrogen, whose manufacturing releases pollutants. Only the rare green hydrogen is renewable, and it is more expensive.

They do have some advantages, such as better range and speed of charge, but hydrogen cars seem to mostly be a technological dead end while batteries get better.

Ah, so they’re just rolling out viable models now, so we should build infrastructure based on something that’s just starting to be viable in that one specific location? Nah.

I’m not sure you know what moving the goal posts means.

Well put, cities and transportation should be designed for all ages of people and easy to get around.

All to often people forget when you get older you will loose access to a car. This leave with with limited options in how to leave your home. Similarly if you are young, you don’t have access to a car and are at the whims of mom and dad driving you around.

Cars either electric or ICE are not what we should design cities around. We need transit, and cities that allow independence at all age groups.

I have seen to many older folks complaining about independence and feeling like they lost it especially when they get too old to drive.

“The political climate in the United States has changed and Canada must follow the US, whether it likes or not.”

Doesn’t the other big C country sell electric cars for cheap?

The constant fast charging would also hammer my battery like crazy, and I total roughly 25,000 km in a year.

If you’re doing a 700km trip once a month, and if we assume you need to charge back up four times — that’s 4 full charge cycles per month, or 48 per year.

A typical EV battery is rated for 1000 to 2000 charge cycles. With an average range of roughly 450km per charge for many modern EVs, and assuming the lower bound of 1000 cycles, you’ll need to put 450 000 km on your vehicle before you have to worry much about battery degradation. Based on your own 25 000 km/year estimate, that’s 18 years of ownership.

Or if we look at it based on charge cycles per month (which we’ll round up to 6 to accommodate for other driving outside your 700km trip once a month), that’s 72 full cycles per year, which won’t get up to 1000 total cycles for nearly 14 years.

Considering the average ICE vehicle in Canada only lasts 10 to 12 years, you’re going to do way better in an EV than you would with ICE. Battery degradation for EVs is VASTLY overstated — estimates of modern EV batteries from the last few years is they should be able to get 1 million miles out of them — the rest of the car is likely to fall apart before the battery fails.

Now the lack of suitable charging infrastructure on your route is a real (and valid!) problem, and we can only hope that situation gets better for everyone (here in BC, BC Hydro has been building out fast charger infrastructure every 150km along all highways throughout the Province, so road trips here are NOT a big issue. I’m on such a trip now incidentally!). But myths about battery life, especially coming from EV enthusiasts has to die.

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.