The Coming Disruption of Transport

[crs1026]

Yes, that's what I mean, thus driving demand for SUVs over cars. I for one would like a small eV like the Bolt, as I don't need something even as large as a Tesla 3.

i had a need for a small car as a second-car-in-the-family grocery getter, was intensively interested in EV’s. Ended up buying one of the last Honda FIT’s before they ended that line.

Guess what - my gas consumption, even considering subsidies and maintenance, has cost less than the differential with an EV. Absolutely no business case for the higher cost of a battery.

EV’s are not always the better deal - yet.

- Paul

 

[afransen]

Yes, that's what I mean, thus driving demand for SUVs over cars. I for one would like a small eV like the Bolt, as I don't need something even as large as a Tesla 3.

Frankly, I don't understand why there is a cap on the purchase price for the credit.

 

[kEiThZ]

Frankly, I don't understand why there is a cap on the purchase price for the credit.

Because it's a bad look for the government to be giving rebates on somebody's Porsche Taycan in a country with a serious housing and cost of living crisis. This is what caused the Wynne Liberals serious problems when the bulk of rebates were going to $100k+ Model S.

To be honest EV rebates as a whole are very debatable policy now that EVs have passed the inflection point and are being adopted on their own. Mandates on OEMs are more effective. Consumers will buy EVs whether or not there's a rebate. There's no shortage of demand. The bigger problem now is supply.

 

[afransen]

I agree. I don't think rebates are good policy. The barrier to EV adoption is scaling the supply chain and purchase subsidies don't really help with that. Ultimately the money flows to automaker bottom lines. I guess their purpose is to help the legacy OEMs not get crushed by Tesla.

 

[rbt]

To be honest EV rebates as a whole are very debatable policy now that EVs have passed the inflection point and are being adopted on their own. Mandates on OEMs are more effective. Consumers will buy EVs whether or not there's a rebate. There's no shortage of demand. The bigger problem now is supply.

Agreed. Investing that same amount into expanding charging options would do more to push adoption along. I know a few people who will not consider an EV because longer distance trips require too much planning (gas stations are nearly everywhere, car chargers are not).

 

[kEiThZ]

I agree. I don't think rebates are good policy. The barrier to EV adoption is scaling the supply chain and purchase subsidies don't really help with that. Ultimately the money flows to automaker bottom lines. I guess their purpose is to help the legacy OEMs not get crushed by Tesla.

Sure. But we're also giving the legacy OEMs billions directly to build new plants and subsidize production. Consumer rebates on top of this are just unnecessary.

Also, as a matter of broader policy what did it say that we rebate EVs and not ebikes or running shoes or bus passes? Stuff that is far less impactful for the environment.

 

[goreckm]

Agreed. Investing that same amount into expanding charging options would do better to push adoption along. I know a few people who will not consider an EV because longer distance trips require too much planning (gas stations are nearly everywhere, car chargers are not).

Yes, this is why, unfortunately, Tesla's are still the only viable electric cars in Canada if you are planning on any length of road trip.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Yes, this is why, unfortunately, Tesla's are still the only viable electric cars in Canada if you are planning on any length of road trip.

It’s even worse for motorcycles. Nothing has a radius of over a 150 km, or range over 300 km.

 

[kEiThZ]

It’s even worse for motorcycles. Nothing has a radius of over a 150 km, or range over 300 km.

Getting closer.....

Zero Motorcycles SR/S - Electric Motorcycle Company

A refined riding experience packed with cutting-edge performance.

zeromotorcycles.com

I'd say another 3-5 years and higher end bikes like these, will be at 300 km real world range

 

[Admiral Beez]

Getting closer.....

Zero Motorcycles SR/S - Electric Motorcycle Company

A refined riding experience packed with cutting-edge performance.

zeromotorcycles.com

I'd say another 3-5 years and higher end bikes like these, will be at 300 km real world range

That’ll be fine for small bike commuters in urban settings, but anyone who rides for fun regularly rides 4-5 hours on any given Sunday.

 

[kEiThZ]

That’ll be fine for small bike commuters in urban settings, but anyone who rides for fun regularly rides 4-5 hours on any given Sunday.

Sure. But recreational riding is largely a niche case in the global context. It's the kind of market/activity that will only be electrified towards the end.

 

[afransen]

Interesting interview with startup Intramotev, creating independently operated and (battery) powered rail cars. Enabling potentially more nimble and cost effective rail operations. If it works, this could be a big enabler for last mile rail operations. The big trouble being of course that much industrial development over the past 30 years has deprioritized direct rail access for intermodal operations. Apparently they are achieving good product-market fit in their initial target market of captive rail movement (such as within a large plant or mining operation). They envision being able to mix in with a conventional consist with loco to provide regenerative braking for up to 20% fuel efficiency improvements.

 

[crs1026]

^There are a couple of interesting concepts in that technology.

-One is the capture and reuse of energy that is released in braking. If the railways ever find a way to do that on a large scale, there is a huge cost and carbon benefit. That absolutely has to be of interest to the business.

- Another is the premise that trains can be broken up and remarshalled without the seesaw shunting. That idea has more technical complexity, and is probably not realisable as a fully automatic process from the start, but that could indeed benefit loose-car railroading, as well as bulk commodities such as grain.

I can see why they are dealing with small and captive fleet customers first.... even with a mature technology, writing a set of rules for interchange service could take a decade.

We need to know more about the drive train. Having 60 traction motors and pinion gears on a train instead of 12 or 18 sounds like a liability. That's a lot more maintenance and failure potential, and copper is not all that much cheaper than lithium.

I can't see eliminating locomotives altogether in the short term, but standalone cars that can recapture a portion of braking energy and recycle it as " boosters" would indeed lower fuel costs and perhaps lead to different locomotive size and operating costs. What's clever is the way they are making the technology compatible with the existing fleet, so that one can simply mix battery cars into trainsets incrementally.

I can actually see this working out somehow with the right decisions and strategy.

- Paul

 

[lenaitch]

^There are a couple of interesting concepts in that technology.

-One is the capture and reuse of energy that is released in braking. If the railways ever find a way to do that on a large scale, there is a huge cost and carbon benefit. That absolutely has to be of interest to the business.

- Another is the premise that trains can be broken up and remarshalled without the seesaw shunting. That idea has more technical complexity, and is probably not realisable as a fully automatic process from the start, but that could indeed benefit loose-car railroading, as well as bulk commodities such as grain.

I can see why they are dealing with small and captive fleet customers first.... even with a mature technology, writing a set of rules for interchange service could take a decade.

We need to know more about the drive train. Having 60 traction motors and pinion gears on a train instead of 12 or 18 sounds like a liability. That's a lot more maintenance and failure potential, and copper is not all that much cheaper than lithium.

I can't see eliminating locomotives altogether in the short term, but standalone cars that can recapture a portion of braking energy and recycle it as " boosters" would indeed lower fuel costs and perhaps lead to different locomotive size and operating costs. What's clever is the way they are making the technology compatible with the existing fleet, so that one can simply mix battery cars into trainsets incrementally.

I can actually see this working out somehow with the right decisions and strategy.

- Paul

There is also potential to enhance braking to solve the issues with the current system in very long trains, particularly in the winter.

Their challenge will be how to make inroads in a system that has over 1.5 million units constantly in motion across North American. Not only will they have to make a dent, but they will have to remain compatible with the rest of the rolling stock. A typical freight car doesn't require a lot of maintenance. If it were me, I might be targetting the non-common carriers with more captive fleets, such QNSL, Cartier or some of the mine railways in Austrailia.

 

[crs1026]

Their challenge will be how to make inroads in a system that has over 1.5 million units constantly in motion across North American. Not only will they have to make a dent, but they will have to remain compatible with the rest of the rolling stock. A typical freight car doesn't require a lot of maintenance. If it were me, I might be targetting the non-common carriers with more captive fleets, such QNSL, Cartier or some of the mine railways in Austrailia.

It sounds from the podcast that this is exactly their strategy.

One issue that affects the bigger railcar fleet is that many cars do come in and out of storage as demand requires. I can't see anyone liking the idea of parking cars with expensive battery packs when demand falls. And (as we see with grafitti) any railcar that does sit idle for any length of time is a security issue. I imagine it would not take long for thieves to begin stealing high-value battery packs from rail cars that are left standing still in unguarded locations.

While the proponents claim (with reason) that their technology could make loaded railcars move more efficiently, this reality that rail cars sit still until needed does put a cap on that potential improvement in fleet mobility.

It's possible to devise a braking and energy recovery scheme that is backwards compatible with air brakes, such that battery cars could be gradually injected into the interchange fleet and operate as self-activating braking cars.. It's harder to imagine how such cars could be programmed as standalone "pusher" units without a direct control from the locomotive.

I have to think that because of battery value, maintenance logistics, and overall complexity, railways will prefer to have a smaller number of battery equipped units which look more like conventional locomotives, and retain a large number of conventional railcars. But the idea has its place, and may have more applications than we realise.

- Paul