Should Alberta have a rebate program for Tesla cars like Ontario?

[play.soccer]

I love teslas, so sure why not.

[sjd]

Originally Posted by EZM

Let's just use FACTS here for a second.

You said our electrical grid is 80% hydro - that's not true. It is 63% (for all of Canada) and the third highest on the planet - which is great - good for us - we should be proud of that ...... HOWEVER ........ the OP's question was about Alberta where we get only 3.3% (yes you read it correctly) of our electricity form hydro-power.

That's right - we here in Alberta get LESS THAN 4% of our electricity in Alberta from Hydro-power. The overwhelming majority of our electricity generation here in the province is emitting.

80% in Alberta is a fairy-tale. It's an orange unicorn.

So suggesting to offer a rebate in Alberta is, in fact, a Joke. Why would I pay to reward a rich person to buy a $ 100K car in this province that does NOTHING to reduce our provinces carbon emission.

Isn't that a Joke?

Here's the data .....

http://www.electricity.ca/media/Elec...10June2014.pdf

That's no Joke.

I wish it was my friend.

I didn't comment at all on the issue of whether you should grant a rebate or not.

I was commenting on your mocking statement that electric vehicles are not cleaner than gasoline if they are supplied by a mix of electricity. You are wrong. In all of Canada, except Alberta, an electric car is going to produce less GHG than a gasoline car. In Alberta it is currently marginal, but with the speed at which coal is being phased out, an electric car powered by natural gas + a bit of renewables will be greener than gasoline in 5 years.

The oil companies are rightly very concerned about the penetration of electric vehicles. Its happening much faster than anyone predicted and is going to have big impacts on oil price. Even a 5% switch is enough to lower oil demand and hence oil price.

[CaberTosser]

Originally Posted by sjd

I didn't comment at all on the issue of whether you should grant a rebate or not.

I was commenting on your mocking statement that electric vehicles are not cleaner than gasoline if they are supplied by a mix of electricity. You are wrong. In all of Canada, except Alberta, an electric car is going to produce less GHG than a gasoline car. In Alberta it is currently marginal, but with the speed at which coal is being phased out, an electric car powered by natural gas + a bit of renewables will be greener than gasoline in 5 years.

The oil companies are rightly very concerned about the penetration of electric vehicles. Its happening much faster than anyone predicted and is going to have big impacts on oil price. Even a 5% switch is enough to lower oil demand and hence oil price.

Telling that you didn't at all cover a response about where you were not only incorrect but also rude about it.

[sjd]

Originally Posted by CaberTosser

Telling that you didn't at all cover a response about where you were not only incorrect but also rude about it.

Sorry, typo, I meant to say Canada is 80% clean, non-emitting (not just hydro) which is exactly what it says in that link that was shared.

Having trouble following EZM's train of thought. First he presents US data, then Canada and then Alberta.

Sorry for hurting anyone's feelings, but its not a joke that electric vehicles on anything except a coal-dominated grid are the cleaner option than gasoline.

[EZM]

Originally Posted by sjd

Sorry, typo, I meant to say Canada is 80% clean, non-emitting (not just hydro) which is exactly what it says in that link that was shared.

Having trouble following EZM's train of thought. First he presents US data, then Canada and then Alberta.

Sorry for hurting anyone's feelings, but its not a joke that electric vehicles on anything except a coal-dominated grid are the cleaner option than gasoline.

Yes, you are correct, I presented data, precisely to illustrate a point.

I presented data from both the US, in Canada, and segmented data within the Canadian report broke out Alberta's numbers to clearly support my position.

Why wouldn't we try use data and facts to support an argument or an opinion?

If we go back and read the original post ........... the question is should ALBERTA offer an incentive/rebate on electric cars.

The answer, and facts, say, that that, if the intent was to encourage the purchase of vehicles which contribute to a smaller carbon footprint, as in the case of ALBERTA, it simply doesn't make any sense.

This electric car, purchased and driven here in Alberta, is, in fact, is WORSE for our carbon footprint.

So why would we, in ALBERTA, offer a subsidy for something that INCREASES our carbon footprint?

Doesn't that have the opposite effect of the intent?

That's my point.You can agree or disagree with my opinion on YES or NO but the facts are facts.

As another side note - this report claims that steam sources are not emitting? or maybe they mean nuclear sources are not emitting? - one of those sources must have been included to reach the 80% claim (that appears on the same report). I'm genuinely curious which segment they claim is not emitting - but I'd say that is a topic of discussion as well - but we can save that one for another thread.

[Peter Gill]

Most recent investor's guidance I have for Tesla suggests the company is close to being in serious financial trouble. Stock has taken a serious dive the past two weeks, is now below where it was 10 months ago. Their reliability also leaves much to be desired, some forums suggest they've overtaken Land Rover for the least-reliable vehicle available in America.

[Unregistered user]

Originally Posted by sjd

Not a joke at all, your argument is lame. An electric grid that is a mix of renewables and gas and coal is still going to produce less greenhouse gas pollution than burning oil, and its getting cleaner all the time.

Canada's grid is 80% hydro, and as you know places like Alberta are phasing out coal too.

Garbage. energy losses due to long distance transmission and converting energy for one form to another and yet another become most inefficient. Hydro power is much dirtier than they'd have us believe.All electric cars do is keep smoke out of the city and leave it in someone else's backyard. And why should taxpayers subsidise someone who can afford a $100 000 car?

[CNP]

Alberta data as of 1732 hrs 28 Feb 2017

Coal is generating the most power in our province. Being replaced by what exactly?

[Supergrit]

If your electricity is produced by coal a tesla car is worst on environment by far compared to a gas car.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by rugatika

https://www.thestar.com/news/queensp...for-tesla.html

People that buy $100,000 plus Teslas get a $14000 rebate in Ontario. Shouldn't Albertans that can hardly afford the carbon tax be helping people that buy $100,000 cars too?

Yes. Why shouldn't the guys that pay the freight in our society get a rebate for once? Want a list of all the rebates and subsidies anyone who makes six figures DOESNT get, because they are the evil "rich" and don't pay "their share"? You become some sort of socialist Ruga?

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by Supergrit

If your electricity is produced by coal a tesla car is worst on environment by far compared to a gas car.

I guess that's why Alberta is phasing out coal and starting solar incentives.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Yes. Why shouldn't the guys that pay the freight in our society get a rebate for once? Want a list of all the rebates and subsidies anyone who makes six figures DOESNT get, because they are the evil "rich" and don't pay "their share"? You become some sort of socialist Ruga?

Welcome back Oko!

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Scott h

I guess that's why Alberta is phasing out coal and starting solar incentives.

This is not a good thing.

Solar technology is toxic to produce and far too inefficient for there to be any benefits.

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by Newview01

This is not a good thing.

Solar technology is toxic to produce and far too inefficient for there to be any benefits.

Decreasing toxicity compared to the alternatives is precisely why it is gaining so much ground. Looks like the growth in the US was around 100% last year.

[dawei88]

no

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[ak-71]

Originally Posted by Scott h

Decreasing toxicity compared to the alternatives is precisely why it is gaining so much ground. Looks like the growth in the US was around 100% last year.

Long, long ways to go. Considering mandatory 100% back up by more reliable sources - might be really expensive way too.

http://instituteforenergyresearch.or...lopedia/solar/

Today, solar energy provides five-tenths of 1 percent of the total energy consumed in the United States.[1] While the amount of utility-scale solar electricity capacity in the US has increased in recent years—rising from 334 megawatts in 1997 to 13,406 megawatts in 2015, it still only accounts for 0.6% of net utility-scale electricity generated in the United States – the least among the renewable sources of hydroelectric, biomass, wind and solar. However, if rooftop solar panels and other solar lighting in the residential, commercial and industrial sectors were included in the generation statistics, total solar generated electricity in the US would represent a larger, but still small share. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates distributed solar capacity at 8,379 megawatts in 2015 and distributed solar generation as 12,141 million kilowatt hours. Once EIA includes distributed solar in their statistics, solar power’s share of generation should increase to 0.9 percent.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by rugatika

Welcome back Oko!

[elkhunter11]

If they are going to give rebates for electric cars, they should give rebates for bicycles that not only produce no emissions, but help to keep people more fit, and more healthy.

[whiteout]

Originally Posted by calgarychef

Electric cars have their place, mostly in warm countries with no snow. Otherwise they'll be used only a few months of the year and sit the rest of that time. It means having two vehicles instead of one....a big waste indeed.

What? A Tesla or any other electric car doesn't stop working when there is snow on the ground or it's cold out.

[HyperMOA]

Originally Posted by whiteout

What? A Tesla or any other electric car doesn't stop working when there is snow on the ground or it's cold out.

They still work. However, to heat the cabin and defrost the window using electricity is a huge amount of electrical draw; which reduces the range of said vehicle drastically. Making it almost useless in cold temps of say -30. At +5 to -5 it would hinder it, but not make it unusable. At -40 I believe it would be basically useless.

In that situation above, would the full discharge and coal-powered recharge of the batteries be carbon-friendly to drive 7 blocks to Safeway and back?

[rugatika]

I was just poking around on Tesla's website. If you can't find a 240v outlet to charge from you can use a regular household outlet. For every hour of charging it adds 5km of range. From a 240v outlet at an RV camp for example you add 37km of range for every hour of charging. I get frustrated if it takes more than 5 minutes to fill my gas tank.

[HyperMOA]

Originally Posted by rugatika

I was just poking around on Tesla's website. If you can't find a 240v outlet to charge from you can use a regular household outlet. For every hour of charging it adds 5km of range. From a 240v outlet at an RV camp for example you add 37km of range for every hour of charging. I get frustrated if it takes more than 5 minutes to fill my gas tank.

It all makes sense now!!! When you own a Tesla you plug into somebody else's power so they pay the carbon tax; that's why it is so green!!!

[HyperMOA]

Originally Posted by rugatika

I was just poking around on Tesla's website. If you can't find a 240v outlet to charge from you can use a regular household outlet. For every hour of charging it adds 5km of range. From a 240v outlet at an RV camp for example you add 37km of range for every hour of charging. I get frustrated if it takes more than 5 minutes to fill my gas tank.

If I strap 20 generators to a Tesla and plug them all in I should be able to drive 100km/h indefinitely then right? I just invented a perpetual motion machine!!! Laws of motion be damned!!!

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by rugatika

I was just poking around on Tesla's website. If you can't find a 240v outlet to charge from you can use a regular household outlet. For every hour of charging it adds 5km of range. From a 240v outlet at an RV camp for example you add 37km of range for every hour of charging. I get frustrated if it takes more than 5 minutes to fill my gas tank.

The cars sound like a sick joke. I have yet to hear one true benefit, aside from ludicrous acceleration.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by Newview01

The cars sound like a sick joke. I have yet to hear one true benefit, aside from ludicrous acceleration.

The main benefit is virtue signalling for the self-righteous. They're the jacked up diesels with bull nutz for the greenie-weenie crowd. (not that there's anything wrong with that...to each their own, live and let live etc, I always say)

[HyperMOA]

Originally Posted by Newview01

The cars sound like a sick joke. I have yet to hear one true benefit, aside from ludicrous acceleration.

Immediate full torque, quiet, and a level of smugness that would embarrass any Harley owner.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by HyperMOA

Immediate full torque, quiet, and a level of smugness that would embarrass any Harley owner.

As well as many Ferrari/Lamborghini/Corvette/Maserati etc owners.

Still not worth it.