Comments by "Neolithic Transit Revolution" (@neolithictransitrevolution427) on "" video.

Energy efficiency is only relevant in the goal of trying to cut fossil fuel imports- which is fundamentally a different goal than electrification. Electrification is ultimately a pathway to reduce fossil fuel imports as well. But as electrification, particularly solar, becomes widespread, efficiency no longer matters. When you have 1¢ energy, you can afford to be wasteful. I say this because from a Canadian prospective we do not have the concern of Europe. We do not need to rush to end fossil fuel imports; we need to electrify. And that means we really have no need to look at efficiency, we need to look at electrical build out.
9
This is why it is essential we do not remove tariffs on Chinese EVs. We need to develop domestic supply chains toward battery manufacturing and Wind turbines. Allowing Chinese subsidized manufacturing will only deindustrialize us further and reduce the Value Added activity we perform. It doesn't matter that a solar panel will last for decades; what matters is we will lose the technological capacity to build and be relevant in this equipment..
8
@ChrisR-xs9wp China can produce 13 million EVs a year, today. If we fail, we can replace all cars in 2040 with Chinese imports, literally no loss. In the mean time you can't call for letting China dump subsidized EVs on our market and then blame the premier of the 4th largest province and a foreign leader for the fact we are are becoming nothing but a raw resource producer. Oil is going away. ICE vehicles are going away. If you want to import all these EVs, we need to be exporting something, and we need to be building those industries not undermining them..
3
@ziploc2000 people argue this like China is a laissez faire economy. Ya, we will have to subsidize industry and use market access restrictions to compete with China..
2
@ChrisR-xs9wp Ontario and the federal government have poured enormous amounts into Batteries and EVs. You can't undermine that with cheap subsidized Chinese models built with lower paid labor and lower environmental standards and then blame Smith..
2
@DJC-it2sw I agree, and Particularly in Southern Ontario/the GTA I think we should be pushing EVs more rapidly as it is relatively oil insecure. But also, I care much less about "economical investments in clean electrification" than I do building Canadian industry to provide it. If the choices are replace all cars in 10 years with Chinese EVs or replace half the cars in 20 years at twice the price using Canadian made EVs, I pick the latter. We cannot afford to look at this in terms of immediate costs. We're losing ICE cars, we're losing Oil, we need new industries to export and reduce imports. We've driven ICEs for 100 years, we will muddle through using them for another 20 years if that is the time required to build a domestic industry, we have oil, oil is about to get very cheap..
2
@DJC-it2sw I am okay with, and want, BYD opening shop in Canada; I am not okay with a token assembly plant so they can flood the market with imports. BYD, or any Chinese EV company, should only be allowed to import EVs at a value equivalent to Exports of Canadian build Chinese EVs to third parties. Also, while initially assembly plants are sufficient, there should be a clear, contractual obligation to increase sourcing of parts from Canadian suppliers over time, and eventually 90% of a vehicle should be Canadian sources. I'm flexible about EU or USA inputs, but China did not reach its position with free trade, and we are under no obligation to treat them fairly in wanting to access our market(s).
2
@benholroyd5221 I understand that, but "working" is a relative term. If I only need range to move around Oslo or my local town, that's very different than needing to be able to drive a few hundred km. Obviously batteries work in the cold, it's a question of working well enough to be practical..
2
@ChrisR-xs9wp I am not defending Smith. But we don't have to sell out Ontario's EV industry it has poured government support into to flood the market with cheaper Chinese models. And we certainly can't do it and then blame Smith. She is not running Canada's economic policy. Blaming dilutent is just silly.
1
@muzehack I do not care about getting off oil. Canada has no strategic dependence on imports, our emissions are not relevant. What matters is the rest of the world does care about getting off oil, particularly foreign oil, and the world's importer is rapidly collapsing their demand. Our economy will not survive as a gas station and Autoparts shop. We can already see the US trying to cannibalize us for share of the shrinking markets. The harm in just accepting these gracious gifts of subsidies from the Chinese is it leaves us with no economy. Their goal is to give a man a fish until he can no longer feed himself and depends on them. If you can't see the harm in letting them take over the manufacturing sector you aren't looking to the south. Trump is what happens when you allow your self to be deindustrialized for cheap imports from a hostile government..
1
@muzehack I do not care about getting off oil. Canada has no strategic dependence on imports, our emissions are not relevant. What matters is the rest of the world does care about getting off oil, particularly foreign oil, and the world's importer is rapidly collapsing their demand. Our economy will not survive as a gas station and Autoparts shop. We can already see the US trying to cannibalize us for share of the shrinking markets. The harm in just accepting these gracious gifts of subsidies from the Chinese is it leaves us with no economy. Their goal is to give a man a fish until he can no longer feed himself and depends on them. If you can't see the harm in letting them take over the manufacturing sector you aren't looking to the south. Trump is what happens when you allow your self to be deindustrialized for cheap imports from a hostile government..
1
@patricksullivan3919 solar will be incredibly inexpensive. But I do believe Nuclear is the only technology that may be completive, and we should be pushing SMR development rapidly. We need to force the Oil sands off NG and onto SMRs to create a market. Geothermal and tidal might be cheaper than either, it's hard to say. But, SMRs will be the least expensive option for process heat.
1
@peterchen2643 Thorium is over rated but Molten Salt reactors are the best possible technology to invest it
1
@barrybrand2970 I quite clearly said our individual usage of gasoline cars isn't something to care about, what matters is creating an industry that builds and exports electric cars. Because most of the world doesn't care about -35. So either that, or OPEC has just started flooding the market for the next 10 years to try and fight off EVs and will keep oil at $50 a barrel and peak oil has happened in monetary terms. But China isn't going to give up its newfound energy independence so the technology is going to continue at scale and keep a low price pressure and continue to get cheaper and more competitive. I expect India and Indonesia to mainly go electric, but most of coastal Africa to go to gasoline.
1
@benholroyd5221 I agree entirely on Hydrogen, the low efficiency conversion is really meaningless in a context where solar is regularly curtailed. But I don't think 6-9 demand, even if it's inflexible, is expensive or non energy abundant. Electrochemical batteries, or a gravity/pressure solution, will offer storage that is only marginally more expensive than effectively free. The only real concern is multiday storage, and if solar is inexpensive enough to install so that it can meet demand on a cloudy winter day, you have absolute abundance. If not, I believe there are other technologies that can put compete solar we should be investing in regardless..
1
@benholroyd5221 I do think using Norway is a disingenuous argument. It's a very different country, it's incredibly urban for used around Oslo, and the remainder is a series of small fragmented coastal towns. It's much more like comparing to Quebec, and even then just the St Lawrence watershed, than to Canada..
1
@benholroyd5221 I generally assume these comments come from people in rural Canada where it isn't uncommon to drive several hundred km for large shopping trips or work.
1
@benholroyd5221 common for the average Canadian, no. But for people in rural areas it can be. I have family that has to drive an hour and a half for a Walmart. And it isn't uncommon to work in trades and have to drive 2 hours to a client. Also, it can be scary enough being caught in a blizzard on the side of the road in an ICE vehicle. People would literally fear for their life in some cases. I'm not anti EV. Toronto/Montreal/Vancouver should all require Taxi/ride shares be EV. But I am against 1 rule national policies or treating a liter of gas used in a rural area as equally problematic to one used in the suburbs. Gotta focus on the low hanging fruit.
1
@benholroyd5221 at one point I supported a Carbon tax on Consumers, but it is far more difficult than it is worth, to the point it was a net negative; and there is a legitimate issue with charging people who can't reasonably transition more fuel fuel essential to them. I agree everyone wants to be the exception. But my opinion is mainly that they aren't the lowest hanging fruit if that's their stance, and I don't think it's worth while fighting with them about it. Once we have the 50% of people who are on board driving EVs, then we'll get 25% more people as half the exception group decides EVs are actually workable, etc. I think there is far to much focus on making everyone want to buy an EV right now..
1
@benholroyd5221 In Canada it was on industry, and also consumers. The biggest issue was the political outrage it caused. Because that was true for 2 of the last 3 elections, and angry was growing overtime. So industry refused to make 5 year investments thinking the tax would just be gone by then. And even at the consumer level, that affected whether people got heat pumps or EVs, if they didn't believe the CT would last the next election. So between the amount of political support the government spent on this relatively small policy in terms of overall emissions reductions, and the economic uncertainty reducing its value, and more so a greater decrease in the value of industrial reductions expected from the industrial carbon tax - which is also a larger component of emissions reductions. I'd argue it wasn't good policy in reality even though I'm theory it is ideal.
1
@benholroyd5221 Consumer and capital subsidies cost more, but at the same time they should be being directed to grow the economy. And there is a much stronger appetite for subsidies, so even if it's less economically efficient, you get political support to do more. Also, the fear subsides might go with the next government increases demand relative to base line, so it is much more difficult to undermine. You can also craft subsidies to reflect that some areas are low hanging fruit and direct more funds, which is more efficient then a blanket increase in the price of energy in areas that are very high hanging fruit. Edit: although I support industrial carbon pricing. That is an effective policy when stroke of the pen risk isn't involved.
1
@patricksullivan3919 what do you mean cold natural gas
1