Canada Will Ban Sales of Combustion Engine Passenger Cars By 2035 374
Canada is joining the ranks of countries and states planning to ban sales of combustion engine cars. Engadget reports: Canada has outlined an Emissions Reduction Plan that will require all new passenger car sales to be zero-emissions models by 2035. The government will gradually ramp up pressure on automakers, requiring "at least" 20 percent zero-emissions sales by 2026 and 60 percent by 2030. Officials didn't say whether this applied to a make's product mix or simply the volume of cars sold. The strategy is more forgiving for the workplace -- the Canadian government wanted 35 percent of total medium- and heavy-duty vehicle sales to be zero-emissions by 2035, and 100 percent of a "subset" of those machines by 2040.
The country is also offering $1.7 billion CAD (about $1.36 billion US) to extend incentives for buying electric cars and other zero-emissions vehicles. The current federal program offers up to a $5,000 CAD ($4,010 US) rebate for EVs, plug-in hybrids and hydrogen fuel cell cars that meet varying price, seat and battery requirements. Some provinces, such as British Columbia and Nova Scotia, offer their own incentives. The broader plan is meant to reduce emissions to 40 to 45 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, and reach net zero by 2050. This includes funds to support renewable energy projects, shrink oil industry emissions and develop "nature-based climate solutions."
The country is also offering $1.7 billion CAD (about $1.36 billion US) to extend incentives for buying electric cars and other zero-emissions vehicles. The current federal program offers up to a $5,000 CAD ($4,010 US) rebate for EVs, plug-in hybrids and hydrogen fuel cell cars that meet varying price, seat and battery requirements. Some provinces, such as British Columbia and Nova Scotia, offer their own incentives. The broader plan is meant to reduce emissions to 40 to 45 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, and reach net zero by 2050. This includes funds to support renewable energy projects, shrink oil industry emissions and develop "nature-based climate solutions."
A ban that far out is not a ban. (Score:2, Insightful)
This is just posturing.
Everyone knows it will be reversed some 5 years out if there's even a modest backslash to it (or if the economic cost turns out to be too high).
Choose 2027 so that this is a real issue in the next election, and that's a gesture worth making.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ayup. Nine climate plans since 1990, zero climate targets reached. [www.cbc.ca] A big part of that is corrupt politicians making empty promises for profit and position that they never intended to meet. Ever.
A bigger part of this, is dealing with the morons who vote for that shit.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
New apartments are not even required to have off street parking. So get a really really long extension cord and expect to have it stolen, cut or unplugged frequently!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do they think we're fools?
You guys sawed a bunch of excellent supersonic interceptors into pieces so Boeing could get some more business.
So, yeah.
Re: (Score:2)
Cool anecdote bro!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I know of a contractor who drove 945KM between cities within the same province [in Canada] for work.
If that contractor drove that distance in one day, then they wouldn't have more than an hour or two left to do real work anyway. If that's round-trip distance, then the time spent between going there and coming back would be spent charging the vehicle's batteries. Driving that far without a break would be illegal for commercial drivers (and still a really bad idea for everyone else).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A ban that far out is not a ban. (Score:4, Informative)
I know of a contractor who drove 945KM between cities within the same province [in Canada] for work.
If that contractor drove that distance in one day, then they wouldn't have more than an hour or two left to do real work anyway. If that's round-trip distance, then the time spent between going there and coming back would be spent charging the vehicle's batteries. Driving that far without a break would be illegal for commercial drivers (and still a really bad idea for everyone else).
I used to commute ~350 miles to work once. Lived in Seattle, drove to Portland (early) Monday mornings, stayed in hotels three nights a week, roughed it in my car one night a week (because I was cheap), and drove back to Seattle on Friday nights. The best current all-electric can't do it; although if there were a fast-charging station along the way, I could build in the extra transit time. I don't need sleep, I have coffee.
So, electric cars are not a viable technology because <insert ludicrous edge case> ?? Give me a break.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Oil has been the #1 cause of wars, and #1 support mechanism for repressive autocratic regimes that the world has ever known.
I can agree with you on point 2, I really can't seem to find any common ground with you on point 1. I really can't seem to find any wars started over oil. I can find references where individual battles are fought to secure oil as a resource but not the over all cause of the war.
In the last 50 years my research shows that most wars are started and fought over some silly religious or political ideology belief. That seems to be the case going all the way back to the American Civil War.
Re: (Score:2)
If you ban ICE vehicles, then you have to cater to the edge cases because there's no other option. Otherwise you're just screwing everyone for whom an electric vehicle is not a viable option.
If you make electric vehicles an attractive proposition then they will take over the majority of cases, while leaving those with edge cases to continue using ICE vehicles.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you ban ICE vehicles, then you have to cater to the edge cases because there's no other option.
Sure there is... stop doing that.
(Or take a 15 minute break on your long drive)
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
Re: (Score:2)
The edge cases can be handled by:
1. Superchargers. A 20 minute stop isn't going to kill you.
2. Put a supplemental battery in the trunk or cargo compartment
3. Get a used ICE vehicle. The ban is only for new cars.
Re: (Score:2)
3. Get a used ICE vehicle. The ban is only for new cars.
This could be very interesting and amusing. In Cuba brilliant and ingenious mechanics manufacture their own replacement parts for old American cars from the 50's to keep them running. Maybe this model will be replicated in other countries banning new ICEs . . . ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ethanol burns in an internal combustion engine, and it is claimed to be a "green" fuel. There's also vegetable oil.
We can't price liquid hydrocarbons out of the market because we can't make aircraft, ships, and so many other vehicles move without them. What's the controlling mechanism to keep these vehicles off the road? Fine people for not paying a road-fuel tax? Then tax the fuels out of the market? What's the point in a road fuel tax if there's no revenue from it?
The government governs with the perm
Re: (Score:2)
What's the controlling mechanism to keep these vehicles off the road?
Fine people for not paying a road-fuel tax?
Yes. This is what happens now [offroadguides.com] in many places with low-tax fuel for use in farming, etc. That seems to mostly stop people putting it in their cars.
Then tax the fuels out of the market?
Yes. If people decide they really, really need to burn fossil fuels for whatever reason (they've decided to accept a job with a ~350 mile commute, for example), they can pay through the nose for privilege.
What's the point in a road fuel tax if there's no revenue from it?
In this case, to reduce the amount of carbon from fossil fuels released into the atmosphere.
Re: (Score:2)
This could be very interesting and amusing. In Cuba brilliant and ingenious mechanics manufacture their own replacement parts for old American cars from the 50's to keep them running. Maybe this model will be replicated in other countries banning new ICEs . . . ?
Wait 'til demand for gasoline drops and the price goes up to $50/gallon. Let's see how keen you are to be "brilliant and ingenious".
OTOH diesel cars can run on just about anything. If I were going to hoard cars I'd go for that...
Re: A ban that far out is not a ban. (Score:2)
Superchargers. A 20 minute stop isn't going to kill you.
Wtf, you selfish, arrogant ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Superchargers. A 20 minute stop isn't going to kill you.
Sure, let's have ambulances, firetrucks, police cruisers, recovery vehicles, snow plows, and everything else run on batteries. I think a 20 minute stop is going to kill a lot of people.
This is a problem that will not be solved by batteries and sunshine. We need nuclear fission and synthesized hydrocarbons. The problem is petroleum, not the internal combustion engine.
works well. it's much cheapre also. (Score:4, Informative)
works well. it's much cheapre also.
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, let's have ambulances, firetrucks, police cruisers, recovery vehicles, snow plows, and everything else run on batteries. I think a 20 minute stop is going to kill a lot of people.
That has to be one of the worst straw man arguments I have ever heard. You might as well say the same thing about stopping to fill up one of those vehicles with fossil fuels. Sure you could maybe drop the time down from 20 minutes to 10 minutes but you could also stop for less time at a super charger and just not put as much charge in the battery of an EV.
If an ambulance (which mainly sits idle at the station) or firetruck (also mostly idle) or police cruiser (which can be charged when the cops stop for cof
Re: (Score:3)
1. Superchargers. A 20 minute stop isn't going to kill you.
For me, my stops at a gas station tend to run about 15 minutes. I fill up the car, use the facilities, then mill around for another 5 or 10 minutes getting a snack and drinks. If I have passengers with me, esp. kids, that stop can go well over 20 minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
EVs have proven to be fine for all cases in Norway. The climate is harsh, the country is very big, it's pretty much worst case for EVs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I used to commute ~350 miles to work once. [snip] The best current all-electric can't do it;
Tesla Model 3 has a range of 358 miles, so it can do it (and so can the Model S) and if you stopped for a coffee or breakfast (not an unlikely scenario) you can charge and build up a safety margin.
Re: (Score:2)
That is round trip. I live in Portland and have made the trip to Seattle multiple times with my Model Y Performance that gets less range than the Model 3 or the Model S. So when you drive the 175mi down to Portland and you're staying at hotels and working throughout the day you can refuel the car, or even, gasp, supercharge it on the way back for 15min if need be, you don't need any more than that if you start yourself out with a full charge before leaving on Monday.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you do this to yourself
Re: (Score:2)
I used to commute ~350 miles to work once. Lived in Seattle, drove to Portland...
Google Maps says Seattle to Portland is 175 miles. That's well within the range of several EVs available now, never mind what will be available in 10 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ICE refueling stations are a dime a dozen -- they're literally everywhere. Electric vehicle recharging stations, not necessarily so much.
When every new car made is an EV, the situation will be reversed.
An EV with say 200mi range ...
There are EVs available now with more than twice that range.
There's R&D in the pipeline for batteries with even higher capacity.
Re: (Score:2)
There's R&D in the pipeline for batteries with even higher capacity.
There's R&D in the pipeline for carbon neutral hydrocarbon fuels. If your argument is based on some not yet realized technology then I can make that argument too. We can synthesize hydrocarbon fuels using energy from nuclear fission. Any complaint you have on my proposed solution I can just come back to how there's R&D in the pipeline to resolve that.
Where is this energy going to come from to charge these batteries? My guess is nuclear fission. You disagree? Fine, we can use whatever you have
Re: (Score:2)
A number of people are getting tired of the BEV vaporware. New battery tech isn't magically appearing.
Compare the range of EVs available now with EVs available 15 years ago. New battery tech has been "magically appearing" for quite a while now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>> An EV with say 200mi range
That is so 2010.
Today, most EVs have some 400 miles, with the big battery.
Re: (Score:2)
I know of a contractor who drove 945KM between cities within the same province [in Canada] for work.
In case any other Americans are as confused as I was, that's approximately 587 freedom units (thanks, Google).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know of a contractor who drove 945KM between cities within the same province [in Canada] for work.
Did you make him eat while driving and pee in a bottle?
Current superchargers can give a 80% charge in 15 minutes. Imagine what they'll be able to do in 2035!
I'd love to be a fly on the wall when you get your first electric car, you'll be all, "WTF was I thinking before?"
Re: (Score:2)
>> How exactly would one employ an electric car with technology available today in such a situation?
By charging up.
I made a 1500km road trip in a day no problem. With a simple base level tesla M3 SR+.
Re: (Score:2)
Bjorn Nyland regularly tests new EVs in a "1000km challenge". He tests the total time to cover 1000km, including charging, in Norway. Norway's climate is somewhat comparable to Canada's.
Test results here: https://docs.google.com/spread... [google.com]
As you can see, using a Kia hybrid as a control, the Tesla Model 3 LR is only 20 minutes slower, completing the 1000km in 9 hours 20 minutes.
Several other cars come within an hour of the hybrid too. So it's actually very possible to do this guy's 945km trip with minimal tim
Re: (Score:2)
Simple. Don't drive that far. In both cities should be more than enough contractors to choose from.
Re: (Score:2)
Daily? I'd tell him (her?) to get a different job where driving didn't devour a significant fraction of his life.
If his actual job was driving, then I'd look at it like this: 945 km is 8-12 hours/day of driving. A person has to take breaks in all of that - for safety, for health, to eat and drink, to use the fucking bathroom. If switching to an electric vehicle becomes the enforcement mechanism for
can not pump gasoline at the station. (Score:2)
>> What happens if the grid goes down?
Then you can not pump gasoline at the station.
Cars (Score:2)
Bro-trucks FTW!
Following the EU (Score:2)
2035 was the same year given by the European Union, and I wouldnâ(TM)t be surprised if more countries align themselves with this timeline.
Any auto manufacturers looking to sell ICE cars from 2030 onwards are going to be finding themselves with a quickly shrinking market. Even Lamborghini and Ferrari have electric cars in the works.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's always so far into the future ... (Score:2)
... that today's preening decision makers won't be personally impacted.
Hey Mr politician, put your money where your mouth is. Trade in your BMW for a Prius.
Re: (Score:2)
A much simpler way (Score:5, Insightful)
is to simply tax the carbon content of fuels. There's no reason to micromanage how to achieve CO2 reductions. Just tax it and let the market forces sort it out.
Re: (Score:2)
People who can't afford an EV will be forced to pay high prices. The rich will carry on polluting.
Banning sales of new ICE cars is the right way to go.
Lots of alternatives (Score:2)
I will gladly wait for new gas turbine cars and steam engine cars :)
Lots of alternatives ? (Score:2)
You'll wait forever.
Good.
Actually seems like a real goal! (Score:2)
Far too many pronouncements like this are useless because there are no interim goals. It's just a setup for getting to the deadline, having made wildly insufficient progress, and then proclaiming that it was an unrealistic goal to begin so should be scrapped. With target percentages for zero-emissions sales in 2026 and 2030 leading up to the ban in 2035, it seems like the Canadians are actually serious.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
There will be no bans on the ICE (Score:2)
This is 100% pure virtue signalling. This is a goal that is beyond the term of any person in office. By the time this comes around everyone is going to have retired.
Don't tell me what you are going to do in 20 years, 15 years, or even 10 years. For some of these people even 5 years is too much. Tell me your goals for the next 18 months. Anything beyond that is bullshit.
There is no technology that can replace the internal combustion engine. What we do have though is technology to replace petroleum. We
Re: (Score:2)
What we do have though is technology to replace petroleum. We can synthesize hydrocarbon fuels using the heat and electricity from nuclear fission. The raw materials can come from most anything with carbon and hydrogen in it.
The math for your idea is impossible. Burn energy to create hydrocarbons? We can pull them from the ground for free...
What about "trucks"? (Score:2)
Will this apply to all those big gas guzzling SUVs and pickup trucks or will it just apply to regular cars?
LOL (Score:2)
Too little, too late.
1. stop almost all civilian SUV and pretend hobby truck sales today in the US, Europe and elsewhere
2. convert to selling only electric cars in 3 years (2025) not 13 years. The US went from zero to the moon in less than 10 years. Surely it's possible to lay down enough cables and solar/wind farms.
The oil and gas that is freed up will allow some transitional electricity generation and a total embargo on Russian fossil fuels and their derivatives such as metals, minerals, cement, fertilize
Stupidity at it's apex (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where does the hydrogen come from? Ethanol as fuel can't work either when you see how much petrol is needed in the growing process. It was an ill fated idea to prop up the corn market.
Re: (Score:2)
Ooooh, burn!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With a water loop an insulated battery pack can be brought up to temperature quite fast. Even if it can output only 1% of it's power, that's plenty to just heat the battery pack.
Re: (Score:2)
PS. water with propylene glycol obviously, or just plain propylene glycol.
Re: (Score:2)
On the downside I don't want to have to all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
so is this going to be funded and installed at every place where people park.
About 2% of vehicles on the road are electric and there are already plenty of chargers.
When we get to 100%, there will be many more.
Also do they even have a standard for connecting this to your car?
Yes, of course. In fact, there are many standards for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing needs to be installed. Even when extremely cold the battery pack can still provide some power.
You construct the battery pack with insulation, water cooling and a radiator outside the insulation for cooling. When the pack needs to be heated, you only pump water around the pack and not the radiator and use some resistive heaters.
A tiny fraction of normal output is plenty to heat the battery pack up to full operating temperature.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For instance in Texas firefighters burned down a forest and put the public in great danger by trying to extinguish and electric car fire with water.
No, no.
I'm told forest fires are a result of improper forest management. Or is that only when it happens in California?
Re: (Score:2)
Lithium Ion batteries generally do not work well below 0C, and are completely non-functional at -20C
Because internal combustion engines totally don't suffer from that problem. </sarcasm> ;)
Fun fact, though. 70% of Canada's population lives further south than I do, and I live in the US
I'm pretty sure the NWT will get by just fine. There are exemptions for work vehicles, and battery heaters aren't any more magical than the block heaters those folks already have.
I get the feeling that Canada's lawmakers, dipshit politicians they may be, are still smarter than you.
Re: Great way to get people killed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't know you could buy a car without engine block heater? It just makes sense even if the temps only go down to -5C, so much nicer for the engine to start prewarmed.
That is just a myth. (Score:2)
>> Electric Vehicles are completely useless in areas such as Enterprise (north west territories) from December through Feb.
That is just a myth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone knows real commies like Putin - real commies like Donald J. Trump and his wannabe brownshirts. Isn't that so, tvarisch?
Re: (Score:2)
they hatin'
Surely you meant "hay-tin'"?
Horse autopilot (Score:2)
Your horse has a good autopilot, better than tesla's
Re: (Score:2)
horse has a good autopilot
Really? [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
THIS. total waste of ressources. (Score:2)
THIS.
Car centric suburbs are just a total waste of ressources.
https://www.youtube.com/c/NotJ... [youtube.com]
Re:Does not solve the problem (Score:4, Funny)
You are fucking high. ICE engines? how about GAS engines,
Speaking of trolls, I'm wondering if you can help me figure out a term that would encompass engines powered by the combustion of both gasoline, and diesel.
I was playing with "Internal Combustion Engine".
Got any ideas for an acronym to make that less unwieldy?
I get that you're offended by the Department of Redundancy Department mistake there, and demand your satisfaction- but maybe next time think it through before popping off at the mouth like you've got an IQ of 45.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They need to create imaginary problems, and then fail trying to solve them.
These are not imaginary problems. Even if you don't care about AGW, local pollution from cars is a real thing, and oil starts wars. The sooner we can get away from gasoline, the better.
Re: (Score:2)
They need to create imaginary problems, and then fail trying to solve them.
These are not imaginary problems. Even if you don't care about AGW, local pollution from cars is a real thing, and oil starts wars. The sooner we can get away from gasoline, the better.
OK, so now the wars will be fought over lithium instead of oil. Makes such a huge difference. We're at what, 0.1% of target saturation of market with EV, and already there's a shortage.
Re: (Score:2)
or even the 1990's
GM's EV-1 was a great car, even with a range limited to ~150 miles it was perfect for 90% of the drivers. But GM and the other car companies, plus help from the oil companies too, managed to scuttle it and the battery tech involved. Set the electric car market behind by decades and also cost US auto/oil interests a lot more when Toyota started selling the Prius in the USA. A car Toyota developed when they thought they would be competing with the EV-1 in the US market.
"Who Killed the Ele
Other car companies? tell me more. (Score:2)
Quite how did other car companies scuttle the EV1?
Re: (Score:2)
The Electric car has been around just as long as fossil fuel powered cars.
"Robert Anderson was a 19th-century Scottish inventor, best known for inventing the first crude electric carriage in Scotland around the time of 1832â"1839. Robert Anderson was an important person for helping invent the first electric car."
Weve known since the beginning of the industrial revolution that the effects of emitting CO2 and other greenhouse gases warms our planet. Yet we have pursued fossil fuels powered combustion eng
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)