At the June 21 Committee of the Whole (CoW) Council Meeting, the Sustainability & Climate Emergency Advisory Committee (SCEAC) recommended that Council proceed with installing eight Electric Vehicle (EV) Chargers at three locations in Town to take advantage of a $40K grant from Natural Resources Canada. However, Councillors were concerned that they did not have enough information on who would use the stations and ongoing costs to the Town. Brent Larmer advised that David Kuhnke, (representing EV owners in Cobourg) would be presenting at the next regular Council meeting on 28 June, so Council decided to defer a decision pending his input and a report from Staff. David’s presentation did not answer all the questions so a decision has not yet been made but there should be a decision in time for 2022 budget deliberations.
Unless you personally own an electric vehicle – that’s a plugin, not a hybrid – there is a lot of background that you may not know. So I’ve done some research for you.
Types of Chargers
Level 1 – that’s where you plugin at home into a regular 115V 15 Amp outlet. Most owners use this as their primary charging method. A full re-charge takes overnight or longer.
Level 2 – that’s custom equipment that needs to be installed by an electrician. It uses 208-230V multi-phase 32 to 80 A – 7.7 to 22KW. It’s similar to power used by Dryers and Stoves. Most private fast chargers are of this type. Time to recharge varies with the installation but a full recharge would take several hours. All installations use the same connecter J1772. Most Level 2 public chargers do not charge a fee although some have conditions attached.
Level 3 – that’s what Tesla Superchargers are and there are a few commercial ones as well – notably by Petro-Canada. The connector used by Tesla is unique and there are two other kinds of connectors used by other vehicles. Re-charge times can be less than an hour. Installation requires a special hydro connection and would not normally be possible at a residence. Using Level 3 chargers usually comes with a fee although some Teslas get free use of superchargers.
Charger locations in Cobourg as of 5 July 2021
For more detail (plug, conditions, phone, notes) see Charge Hub
| Name | Type – KW | Location | Usage Fee |
| Lakefront Utilities * | Level 2 – 7.2 KW | 201 Division St | Free |
| Police * | Level 2 – 6.24 KW | Hibernia Parking Lot | Free |
| Best Western | Level 2 | 930 Burnham St, | Free for overnight guests |
| Cobourg Nissan | Level 2 | 831 Division St | Unknown |
| Venture 13 * | Level 2 – 7.2 KW | 739 D’Arcy St | Free |
| Petro-Canada | Level 3 (not Tesla) | 490 White Street | $0.33 per minute |
* On Municipality owned property
New locations proposed by the Town and recommended by SCEAC [My clarifications in square brackets]
- 2 dual chargers to charge 4 vehicles at the Cobourg Community Centre
- 1 dual charger on lower Division St. next to Victoria Park [better described as near the Trailer Park]
- 1 dual charger in the Cobourg Harbour parking lot; [It was also described as behind the downtown LCBO]
The next step is further discussion with SCEAC to hopefully get usage data. This would be followed by a staff report with detailed cost implications then final approval at the 2022 budget sessions.
Links
- Recommendation by SCEAC
- Presentation by David Kuhnke, EV Society of Canada, Northumberland Chapter
- Map of charger locations
Print Article:
Here are my responses to some of the other EV issues.
5/ Making and using an EV for the life of the vehicle has almost an order of magnitude fewer GHG associated with it than driving a mid size gasoline car. A bit of time googling around will find studies showing this. It is an argument that EVs require much more lifecycle energy, but plenty of work has shown it to not be true. Remember that a mid size car emits about 50 or more tonnes of GHG during its lifetime of gasoline consumption, that is far in excess of what it takes to make a battery.
6/ Our natural gas, electricity, phone, and internet are provided through a cooperative and sometimes competitive model of town and provincial regulatory requirements and private and public companies across Ontario. To date, the vast majority of the over 4000 EV chargers in Ontario have been installed by private companies who collect fees for charging EVs.
In June, the Ontario government announced taxpayer funds of $1,674,964 to support natural gas connections for 77 homes in the Peterborough area. I am all for an informed discussion on EV chargers and awareness of costs and cost recovery charges, but very few large energy shifts are made without taxpayer support, whether it is the development of the tar sands, closing old oil wells, or developing a network of EV chargers.
Cheers
steve
There are numerous issues being discussed in the various postings, I will try to address them here in a couple of new posts.
1/ To drive a typical new EV 20,000 km requires about the equivalent of 400 Watts continuous on a household circuit, that is, about 3,200 kWh a year. A toaster draws about 1000 Watts. An EV charging at night at a rate of 1 kW for 8 hours will provide 20,000 of driving on an annual basis. The president of the IESO addressed EV developments and power required in a webinar a few months ago, at the expected growth rates of EV ownership, there is plenty of time to address places in the grid where there may be capacity issues. One million typical EVs in Ontario will require about 2.5 TWh a year, our present provincial consumption is about 160 TWh a year. Much of the EV charging can and will take place at night when we have capacity through nuclear and wind. No one is saying the grid will stay exactly as is, and it never has. All EVs have charge timers so night or other times of day can be programmed for charging. Smart grids, demand control devices and efficiency improvement in other areas of society (heat pumps instead of resistance space and hot water heating) are all part of how we can adapt to the additional TWh. Grid development for housing developments is not seen as a barrier to new houses or new businesses, it’s part of what is included in the price of electricity, so we can adapt to EVs too.
2/ Eventually, the loss of tax revenue from fossil fuel taxes will certainly have to be addressed as EVs become a critical mass. A cost per km based in annual licensing of all cars and a proper accounting of the real costs of fossil fuel use (health care, spills, subsidies for pipelines and old well cleanup should ideally be included, plus the impacts of climate change if they become legally accepted liabilities) would be areas that need to be looked at in developing new tax policies. Tax policies are always evolving, and they certainly can as we have more EVs.
3/ Seniors who don’t drive very far in their gasoline cars are not contributing as much to GHG emissions as people who drive farther, so they are not priorities for having low carbon transportation. Seniors who do want to reduce their GHG car emissions can buy a used EV that will require very little maintenance, thus saving them the hassle of those trips for oil changes and such. There are quite a few used EVs in the 10-20k range that could be ideal for local trips.
November 16, 2019, ‘Harry Nash and his wife Linda are planning an “adventure” – they are driving their 2017 Tesla Model S from Cobourg to see family on the West Coast of the U.S. then the South Coast’
We never heard how the trip turned out. Why not?
Wally
If you look at that article, there is an addendum at the bottom that reports how the trip went. Go here.
There have been some questions about the capacity of the electrical grid. With the current small numbers of EVs there should not be a problem most of the time, for now. Peak power consumption in Ontario is on hot weekday afternoons. Some homes have ‘smart’ power monitors that allow the electrical system operators to control home AC. This allows the reduction of peak load. The same technology could reduce or turn off power to the level 2 connections during peak loads. As the number of EVs increases the demand to the grid will increase. There are new federal grants to help reduce CO2 emissions from housing. Some of the grants are for replacing gas furnaces and water heaters with heat pumps. The heat pumps will also put more demand on the grid. Buy a small house with solar panels on the roof and walk or ride a bicycle if you really want to make a difference. Some people do.
There are houses out in the hills that have no furnace at all because of the difficulty of delivering and storing fuel. It’s all built-in electrical-resistance heating.
In that case installing heat pumps should reduce demand for electricity overall by a substantial amount.
Yes, replacing electrical-resistance baseboard heater or electric furnace with a heat pump will reduce electricity use. The grant is $4000 for a central system. It is the gas furnace replacements that will put more demand on the electrical grid. The oil crisis of the 1970’s resulted in more electric heating and the building of nuclear plants from what I understand. Lots of people were against nuclear then. Some people now want nuclear to power cars and heat houses.
Almost every part of our current technology demands electricity. When I was a kid, the better more efficient way was to move from oil furnaces and baseboard electric heaters to gas. Now we are transitioning to heat pumps and solar panels. The capital costs are very significant (more than a $5K grant) while the years to break even are many. Fact is we will be in electric deficit in four years and it will only accelerate from there. It takes decades to build stable capacity and solar and wind based production, as currently designed, will not fill the gaps. Adding tens of thousands of EVs without adding stable production, in the form of new nuclear or hydro, is a recipe for rolling brown and black outs. I have seen the future and it is not well lit.
Electricity prices have been a political topic for some time. People do not like prices increases. It is quite likely people will be even more upset about rolling brown/black outs. The debt retirement charge on hydro bills was to cover the cost of construction of nuclear plants, if I understand correctly. The forecasts for increased electricity usage were wrong and Ontario had an over supply. Not long ago people were complaining about giving or paying the US to take some of the surplus. There will be much more complaining when the lights go out. With EVs, heat pumps, more people and more houses there will be more electricity use and higher prices.
Kevin, I believe that you are confusing two issues: generation of electricity and local distribution of electricity. Both are problems but have different causes and solutions.
There is little fundamental reason for the cost of electricity to increase with increased demand. A significant factor in recent electricity price increases is our previous government’s misguided scheme to sign 20-year contracts at far over market prices for interruptible power from solar panels (as much as 80.4 cents/kWh) when reliable power could be had for a tenth of that price. We also retired coal fired generators (Nanticoke for example) long before its planned end of life.
The remote shutdown of air conditioning to limit peak load, as you mentioned earlier, is completely unacceptable. Why would anyone want to turn off their air conditioners when it is hottest? Consider the recent high temperatures in BC.
Yes, there are two issues. In the short-term level 1 chargers should not be a problem. If several people, all getting power from a local transformer, install level 2 chargers there could be a local problem. There is a cost to upgrade local distribution. From MCGA’s comments there could be a shortage of electricity generation post 2025. We will have to decrease consumption (with higher prices?) or increase supply. As MCGA implied there is a limit to the number of new dams we can build. Nuclear reactors take a long time and much money to build. How will we meet the long-term increase in demand without increasing prices? A big reason for EVs is reduced use of fossil fuels. If we have brown/black outs people will use generators powered by the same fuels EVs are to reduce.
Kevin, what great prospects you mention! If people are forced to convert to electric heat then consumption won’t be greatly reduced by price — most hesitate to freeze in the dark.
The sun doesn’t shine at night. Wind turbines kill birds. Nuclear is unpopular. There aren’t a lot of additional dam sites in Ontario and, besides, dams are environmentally problematic. It takes twenty years or more to approve, design, build and commission additional generation. Consider how long it has taken to make a start on building a pipeline through BC. Now with UNDRIP it will take even longer (forever?) to build additional transmission lines across Ontario or from Quebec.
The only solution appears to be to use gas fired generation to run our new EV charging stations. Or do as is common in northern Ontario and power the EV chargers with diesel generators.
Obviously we need to ban both generators and fossil fueled cars by 2035. Everyone can read in front of their dark TVs using whale oil lamps.
Gentlemen, what we need, no, absolutely require is the coincidence of inspired, focused leadership intersecting with the requisite technological jump. Before the Manhattan Project, nuclear energy was an academic theory. What is necessary is another iteration of that same collective genius. High bar I know, but what is the alternative?
Really? I recently read that the scientists involved in those early experiments were aware that there was a chance a nuclear explosion test could theoretically ignite the atmosphere and obliterate all life on the planet. I guess they (or their leaders) figured proceeding with the field test was worth the risk and breathed a sigh of relief when it did not happen at the time of the first detonation. Just because we can does not mean we should. And, exactly how many generations into the future should we today burden humanity with waste issues? Humans will not always be so lucky with passing risk onto others.
And, has the lithium issue with batteries been solved yet? I support research and investigations with full cycle consideration from manufacture to disposal.
As for publicly located charging stations, make sure they include an option for quick charging of personal mobility devices too.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210217-the-moments-that-we-could-have-destroyed-humanity
My edit is to add the link to the article.
Not every change is fully beneficial or without risk. By the standard you offer we would have avoided adopting internal combustion engines, transitioning to petroleum and still be reading by whale oil fueled lamps…unless we had already killed off all the whales for their product. Those generations that follow enjoy both the benefits as well as suffering the mistakes. My understanding of history, which is more than fair, is that we get it right more than wrong. Not trying to fix problems as they arise is not in our DNA.
Yes, there was active debate about what sort of chain reaction could be produced by an Atomic explosion. There was also an estimate that the allies would suffer more than 1 million casualties through the full invasion of Japan. Lastly, some scientists believed we would create a black hole that would swallow the Earth when we started up the Large Hadron Collider…we are still here.
I agree, except that the “debt retirement charge” on hydro bills was actually a scam to give high-volume electricity users (e.g. the wealthy bureaucrats who structured it this way) a lower KWh rate, since the charge does not increase with usage.
Do the math: total bill divided by KWh consumed goes down the more juice you use. Any debt retirement costs should have come from general revenues to impact everyone the same, to be fair.
As a very recently retired Professional Engineer who spent most of my career working on either energy efficiency, renewable energy or electric vehicle research and development, I would like to address some of the issues that this thread has raised.
1/ The use of fossil fueled vehicles costs society an enormous amount of money through the impacts of both environmental damage and health care costs. Those costs are not included in the cost of diesel or gasoline, so taxpayers are already subsidizing fossil fuel use, to the sum of billions in health care costs across Canada. An hour of research on the internet will provide plenty of reports documenting these costs both in Canada and around the world.
2/ EV sales around the world are growing at one of the fastest rates of any technology introduction, a compound annual growth rate of 60% in Europe and 36% in China to 2020.
3/ For 6 years, i’ve been giving workshops on whether an EV is the right choice for folks. The lower priced EVs now available are about 5 and ten year life cycle cost neutral when compared to gasoline cars in the $25 k MSRP range. This is because of the approximately $1000 to $2000 a year most people will save in gasoline, and the fact that studies are showing EVs cost about 50% in maintenance compared to gasoline cars.
4/ Governments force us to buy all sorts of things, air bags in cars, catalytic converters, proper wiring in homes, the list goes on and on. You’re not allowed to burn tires in your backyard because of the impact on air quality. We are now entering a phase of societal improvements that means we will not be able to continue to burn fossil fuels at past rates. Any country that does not address the global need to reduce GHG emissions will either be penalized by regulations similar to the WTO or import/export, these policy proposals are already working their way forward globally.
5/ Ontario has extremely low GHG associated with each kWh of electricity produced, so much so that an EV will be responsible for less than 100 kg of GHG a year, while a midsize gasoline car is about 3000 kg. Even in coal fired areas, EVs produce fewer GHG than similar sized gasoline cars, and that’s without accounting for upstream fossil fuel GHG production.
6/ I don’t know any EV owners who expect free EV charging.
Cheers
Steve Lapp
“Any country that does not address the global need to reduce GHG emissions will either be penalized by regulations similar to the WTO or import/export, these policy proposals are already working their way forward globally.”
China’s coal boom ‘outweighs global coal plant retirements’ – Energy Live News
“China was home to 85% of the 87.4GW of proposed new coal plants in 2020. The global coal plant retirements were led by the US with 11.3GW and EU with 10.1GW”
“Dozens of new coal power projects, equal to the total coal power capacity of Germany and Poland combined, were announced last year in China.”
“China’s electricity demand was 33% higher in 2020 than in 2015.”
All that coal burning is intended to power the upcoming mass production of inexpensive EVs for its 1.4 billion proles. The coal is designed to power the mass manufacturing of EVs, and then designed to power the millions and ever more millions of EVs for decades to come.
Insofar as the Communist Party of China is concerned, they will disregard the advice/rule of the WTO or any other international body (eg. WHO) because they know they can do so with impunity. They know this because our deeply concerned Western environmentalists refuse to protest the growing global contamination by the admirable basic dictatorshit of the world, the glorious Communist Party of China.
Give it a rest Wally. Or at least take your CPC blabbering somewhere else.
No.
Steve Lapp posted an untruth and I corrected it. Sorry that it hurt your admiration of the basic dictatorshit of China.
The EU is presently developing carbon border taxes/fees, they will affect imports from China. China is for sure a huge emitter of GHG, but also a huge producer and user of zero carbon renewable energy. Yes, they will need to reduce their emissions, we don’t yet know exactly how that will unfold.
Where did you read that I admire the “basic dictatorshit [silly childish word] of China.”?
You’re not making things up again, are you?
When you attack the messenger because you don’t like the message, it’s called an ad hominem, and it’s not a very nice term.
Let’s stick to the issues, shall we?
Thanks, Steve. This info is helpful. I have read that in countries that have higher EV adoption rates(Norway/Switzerland et al) that the strategy of municipalities installing charging stations was misguided. They found that the #1 reason people decided to purchase an EV was if they had the ability to re-charge the vehicle at their own home. While Municipalities wanted to be seen to doing the right thing, they really had no positive impact. Kind of like when we send our recycled goods to a landfill…..good intentions, but pursuing the wrong model. Do you agree?
With that said–someone has to lead…
“Someone has to lead” is actually accurate and profound. One of my favorite professors had a verbal hook: “The key to success is finding a need and filling it.” If we truly need EVs then some manufacturer is going to have to follow Henry Ford and VW, etc’s successful business model. In the early 1900s there were more than 480 car manufacturers in the US. Ford, and a handful of other manufacturers, knocked them all out of the box by producing a well priced, quality product available to the many. We do not have that now; nor do we have an adequate fuel source…two monumental needs yet to be filled.
Thank you for your comments. As an expert in the field could you please expand on a few of your points?
To carry Ken’s thoughts a little further:
Ken and MCGA,
To assist you and other readers I would suggest that you take a look at the Charge the North Project
https://www.fleetcarma.com/charge-the-north-summary/
It has a lot of information that will answer some of your questions as well as assist in the ongoing debate of home charging vs work/public charging and to charge a fee or not.
IESO references it in their 2020 Annual Projected Outlook (APO) with a specific section on EV’s and their impact on electricity usage going forward.
This from the IESO 2020 APO
“Many factors affect EV adoption and a wide range of EV adoption forecasts are available. The IESO’s EV adoption forecast is based on historical trends and available information, such as industry sales data, government vehicle registration data and forecasts from other reputable organizations. The profile of EV charging is as important as the total charging electricity, when considering the impact on the demand forecast. Real-world charging data from the Charge the North project, the world’s largest electric vehicle charging study, was used to develop the charging profile and EV hourly demand forecast. The state of the economy has a compound effect on EV charging demand. Both EV sales and driving distance dropped in 2020 as a result of social distancing practices, temporary business closures, travel restrictions and the increase in people working from home. Each of the two scenarios reflects the various levels of EV charging demand growth. The 2020 APO EV forecast is an adjustment of the 2019 APO EV forecast which projected the number of EVs in Ontario to reach approximately 0.7 million by 2030 and 1.2 million by 2040 with an annual charging demand of 4 TWh. In Scenario 1, EV charging demand rebounds fast, reaching the level of the 2019 APO in 2030. In Scenario 2, EV charging demand rebounds slower, reaching 75 per cent of the Scenario 1 level in the medium and long terms. Overall, electric vehicle electricity demand is forecast to grow in Scenario 1, from 0.4 TWh in 2022 to 4.1 TWh in 2040, an average annual growth rate of 15.2 per cent, and in Scenario 2, from 0.3 TWh in 2022 to 3.1 TWh in 2040, an average annual growth rate of 14.5 per cent.”
Pete, the fleetcarma material makes the same point that I mentioned earlier: the local distribution infrastructure will be inadequate to handle home charging. As they note: “…it was proven that EVs have the potential to overload residential transformers on their own without adding any additional household demand”. The concept of “free workplace charging” is fraught with a variety of issues including most commuters don’t park at their workplace, free charging would require tracking as a taxable benefit, free charging is unfair to those using public transit or bikes, etc.
The historical EV adoption rate has been extremely low and new factors such as outlawing all cars by 2035 were not considered. Thus the IESO forecast is low. The IESO forecast a supply deficit by 2025 even with a low adoption rate and the reality could be far worse. And that is without consideration of the inadequate local distribution infrastructure.
Not sure this answers either of my questions. But what is reasonably clear is that we will not have enough electricity, post 2025 to charge these vehicles. And the deficit gap is currently forecasted to grow every year thereafter. We ain’t building new reactors or digging new rivers to run new hydro dams so where do all the little electrons come from?
Also, why shouldn’t the vehicle manufacturers be responsible for building and wiring and paying for the required public charging stations for those EVs they are manufacturing and profiting from?
At the point Henry Ford started mass producing the horseless carriage, he did not expect the federal, state or local governments to build fueling stations for them. Though J.D. Rockefeller found a way to make a few bucks on the process.
Ford didn’t have the benefit of fanatics blaming every storm on climate change.
I won’t enter into the climate change debate because I have not accumulated enough data to finalize a defendable opinion. That said, I have visited a good number of places in the world where there use to be loads of people, advanced cultures and thriving economies that are now largely abandoned. In many of those cases, rain stopped falling, rivers stopped flowing, lakes dried up, life became unsupportable and they either died or moved. There is also 7.9 billion of us now crawling all over the planet and that likely has impact. The definitive answer appears to be above my pay grade.
Ken, I hope you saw my responses to your reasonable questions, I posted it as two new entries as there were several other issues also being discussed by others.
As for air conditioning and heating an EV, typical trips in very hot or cold weather might require about 5% to 10% of the battery kWh for those tasks. My own experience driving a 2019 EV without a heat pump 1,600 km in severe winter weather (0 to -5 C with continuous snow and freezing rain) showed the car to use 6% of it’s energy for heating and defrosting.
Yes, I read your responses.
If I did the arithmetic correctly you are saying that a typical EV requires only about 2hp to travel at 100km/h. That seems incredibly low when one considers wind drag, friction between tires and road, motor efficiency, A/C + heating + lights + defroster. In fact, 2hp is within the possible output of a human athlete.
Do most EVs include a heat pump for heating/cooling? How does a heat pump work to provide seat heating as is common in modern cars?
Can you please convey your arithmetic to me, I am very aware that an EV requires about 10-20 kW to travel at highway speeds.
Seats surfaces are heated by pure resistance electric heater, about 50 to 200 watts maximum, but they do run continuously. I’m not sure of the split in heat pumps by manufacturer, definitely heat pumps reduce energy consumption, it’s just less than many people might guess. Like i said, my own EV with pure resistance heating used 6% of its trip kWh to provide 20 C cabin heat over a 1,600 km trip, a heat pump would have used less.
After reading the responses to my original comment it’s easy to see there are a lot of prejudices against EVs and of course everyone is entitled to their opinion. But I’m not sure why people are against trying to improve the environment in our wonderful town and keep Cobourg up with what’s now happening globally with regards to the auto industry. Sometimes it’s like trying to argue with a bunch of Trump supporters or COVID anti-vaxxers, they believe every bit of misinformation, lies and conspiracy theories because they don’t do their due diligence and realize what is actually realistic and reasonable. After all, the car companies of the world are spending billions of dollars together to develop EVs to be the way of the future in their industry, surely they can’t all be wrong?! Take for example the most popular vehicle in North America, the Ford F-150, I bet many of the anti-EVers don’t realize that Ford already has over 100,000 preorders for their upcoming F-150 Lightning Electric pickup truck. This is a superior vehicle to the ICE version in most ways being cheaper to run, cheaper to maintain, more powerful, much quicker, quieter and has zero emissions. Not only that but it costs the same as the equivalent version of the ICE vehicle. So, pickup truck owners are jumping on the EV bandwagon and they usually know what they want in a vehicle! With the advancements being made in battery technology we are seeing increased ranges, reduced prices and advanced safety features. All we ask is that you at least take an EV for a test drive when considering your next vehicle purchase, you won’t be disappointed and you’ll be doing the environment a favour. I hope Cobourg Council progresses with the charging station installations and does it’s bit for the environment too.
EV market share has been hovering around 1% for a long time, the market is growing at a snail’s pace. They are a luxury item most people can’t afford and as most EV owners are wealthy, subsidizing chargers is a handout to the wealthy.
Not at all true! The market share is now 3% and the fastest growing segment in many countries. Many EVs are now available at well below the average cost of an ICE vehicle in Canada after the various rebates. I own a 2018 Nissan LEAF and I’m by no means “wealthy”! Besides, depending on how much you drive the monthly savings in fuel and maintenance make EVs more affordable than the ICE vehicle equivalent.😁
Subsidies hide the true cost and should be eliminated. Having taxpayers help pay for your car is immoral.
I’m heading to Winipeg this week. Easy two day drive. It would take a week in a Nissan Leaf.
The politicians are afraid to force the EV’ers to pay “road tax” in their cost of electricty. Even the playing field boys and let’s see where the dust settles.
The town has no business getting into the auto charging business. It is time that governments of all levels stop tilting the table towards the success of one form of transit versus another by way of taxpayer subsidies.
The idea of these grants to install charging stations is to encourage people to get rid of their polluting gas guzzlers and help the environment. There are an increasing number of EVs on the roads and I see at least 3 a day in Cobourg, sometimes more. A couple of years ago I might have seen 1 a week. I have used the charging stations in Cobourg and have seen cars charging most days. By the way, the L1 & L2 units are not chargers they are EVSE (Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment), the chargers for these are built into each vehicle, only the L3 DCFC (Fast chargers) are actually chargers. I hope we see these units installed and there is no reason a small pay per use fee shouldn’t be charged, we don’t mind paying to drive our quiet, non polluting vehicles! After all, everyone will be having to buy them in a few years
“After all, everyone will be having to buy them in a few years”
Nobody “has” to buy anything. Banning practical transportation will be political suicide. However if you are right and sales of regular cars are banned, we will turn into Cuba with everyone driving old cars.
“Nobody has to buy anything”
Not right now, but by 2035 you’ll have no other choice. Sounds good to me. If anything, I think the timeline should be more aggressive than that. Like in Norway.
https://driving.ca/column/motor-mouth/motor-mouth-canada-moves-to-ban-internal-combustion-engines-by-2035
Gas will be available forever, people will just drive old cars. Or diesel trucks.
It won’t be political suicide. The phase out of gas powered cars has already begun. California started the precedent of 2035 being the year that new cars must be electric (interestingly enough this is politically popular in California). The rest of North America is following suit, including Canada. Obviously this has left to Auto manufacturers shifting all of their R&D to electric.
Of course some diehards will hold out and buy used gas powered vehicles but that will only be feasible for so long.
AND just how is electricity produced?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation
Thanks George! I find it hard to believe that there are still countries burning coal to produce electricity!?….YIKES!
My only comment to this affair, is that I believe some day we will be using hydrogen to power our personal vehicles and not electricity. I’m 72, but maybe, just maybe, I’ll see this before I head to the big highway in the sky!
Still lots of coal and oil fired power still in Canada.
Jeff , Canada is changing , get with the program 😁
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-renewables-idUSKBN2BF0H8
Face it, EVs are just politically charged virtue signalling. There is no way the grid can handle mass car charging. EVs are the 8 track tape version of car technology, they will die shortly after hydrogen technology takes over.
Hang on to that old Betamax player Jeffy, you’ll find something to play on it sooner or later. Try some of the movie barrels at Kresges.
Jeff , That is pretty funny , hydrogen will work for large vehicles, ships , but for cars will be EVs
California heat waves prompt alerts about EV charging habits, energy conservation (greencarreports.com)
To all you EV Owners, why are u asking me to subsidize your EV’s if you cant afford to have one do like everyone else, save until you can, also why does the town need to rush into installing them, seems to me that they are going to spend thousands ??? to get the free government money of only $40000, another thing why down at the harbour guess the EV owners don’t want to drive to far. That’s a lot of expense for 3 cars a day
I always assumed that charger “down at the harbour” was there for the use of visitors, who can’t charge their EV at home while they are here.
Some have mentioned that installing free chargers would encourage visits by tourists but only a tiny percentage of visitors have EVs. It would be far more effective to give away free gasoline instead of free charging!
How generous of you to suggest a “small pay per use fee”! The fee should be large enough to cover the cost of electricity used plus maintenance on the equipment plus the original equipment cost plus the gasoline tax revenue lost to the town plus… Why would anyone consider providing a free lunch for EV owners?
After reading the responses to my original comment it’s easy to see there are a lot of prejudices against EVs and of course everyone is entitled to their opinion. But I’m not sure why people are against trying to improve the environment in our wonderful town and keep Cobourg up with what’s now happening globally with regards to the auto industry. Sometimes it’s like trying to argue with a bunch of Trump supporters or COVID anti-vaxxers, they believe every bit of misinformation, lies and conspiracy theories because they don’t do their due diligence and realize what is actually realistic and reasonable. After all, the car companies of the world are spending billions of dollars together to develop EVs to be the way of the future in their industry, surely they can’t all be wrong?! Take for example the most popular vehicle in North America, the Ford F-150, I bet many of the anti-EVers don’t realize that Ford already has over 100,000 preorders for their upcoming F-150 Lightning Electric pickup truck. This is a superior vehicle to the ICE version in most ways being cheaper to run, cheaper to maintain, more powerful, much quicker, quieter and has zero emissions. Not only that but it costs the same as the equivalent version of the ICE vehicle. So, pickup truck owners are jumping on the EV bandwagon and they usually know what they want in a vehicle! With the advancements being made in battery technology we are seeing increased ranges, reduced prices and advanced safety features. All we ask is that you at least take an EV for a test drive when considering your next vehicle purchase, you won’t be disappointed and you’ll be doing the environment a favour. I hope Cobourg Council progresses with the charging station installations and does it’s bit for the environment too.
This was interesting to read this morning – https://fordauthority.com/2021/07/2021-ford-mustang-mach-e-outsold-ice-ford-mustang-last-month/
I love my new Escape Titanium Hybrid AWD. It generates its own electricity which it economically runs along with. No plug in needed.
We were planning to drive our 2015 Leaf from Peterborough to take the train from Cobourg to Montreal (to do our part for the environment by reducing emissions) but there are no charging stations at the train station to ensure we have enough battery power to drive back to Peterborough when we return. I would suggest to Cobourg city council that this would be a good place to install one.
It would be a good place, but the suggestion should be directed to Canadian National Railway.
Matter of fact, that might be a good policy for CNR to adopt. There are a good number of commuters who live in Northumberland, park at the train station and commute to Toronto. CNR could benefit from selling electricity in their parking lots. Ontario might want to implement the same for Go Train commuters and sell electricity to them also.
I see no reason why the taxpayer should pay for ev owners to charge their vehicles. All charging stations should be pay for use. Another important consideration is usage. If the charging stations are rarely used why build more.
It is pay for use. These EV stations are more for out-of-town people coming to Cobourg. All vehicles will have to be net zero emissions by 2035 by federal government regulation. Auto manufacturers GM/ Ford/ Volkswagen/Chryser are making changes now to build only electric vehicles. It is necessary to combat climate change. Besides, vehicles will be non-polluting and quieter. The electricity in Quebec, B.C. Manitoba and Nfld. is carbon-free and almost so in Ontario [10% natural gas].
So the federal government is dictating policy for the next 15 years, very presumptuous, I suspect we will get there but history will reveal how climate change will be the same, it’s called the weather