For urban areas, I can see that percentage easily outselling ICE's and then some. It all depends on charging infrastructure (how quickly it's adopted into multi-unit dwellings)

I see EV's in Victoria increasing every day. I really notice an explosion of Model 3's in the last few months. This region is tiny, 90% of people here drive less than 50km a day, something like 50% drive less than 20km/day. Your typical home charge EV would more than cover most people.

I would buy one tomorrow if a decent one didn't cost nearly as much as an STI

I have a feeling / vague memories from attending municipal public hearings that some (most?) municipalities in the Lower Mainland are already mandating newly built multi-family dwellings to include (or at least be capable of supporting) EV chargers. But of course, the bigger issue is how to retrofit them into existing buildings. Personally, I don't think it would be easy at all when the buildings aren't designed to support that kind of electricity loads in the first place.

Then again, most of us don't have a gas station right there at home in our own garages. Most of us probably don't fill up our cars at home using jerry cans either. So is it really necessary to have EV charging available at home?

BC isn't just Lower Mainland, or even the Fraser Valley, or Capital Region. I don't agree with Horgan / NDP's law to restrict new car sales to zero emission only by 2040 because I don't believe it can be implemented, both in terms of practicality and as far as timeline is concerned.

It takes many times longer to charge than it does to fill

I think the issue is the time it takes to fully charge a EV, which is probably around 4-6 hours from a depleted battery. If charging took around 5 minutes, it would make sense to have a coop style charging station.

I thought the current level 2 chargers can bring a battery back up to 70 - 80% in half an hour or so? And VWAG (or maybe it's just Porsche) is experimenting with something even faster that can get you back into 80% charge in 15 min. If a low battery can get recharged back up to 80% in 15 min or less, it may not be necessary to have charging stations at home.

Level 1 charging station for Chevy Bolt
Level 1 electric car chargers are the least expensive option, and are typically provided when you purchase your Chevy Bolt. Level 1 chargers plug into a standard wall outlet. They are also the slowest type of EV charger available. A standard Chevy Bolt Level 1 charging station will be able to offer about 4 miles of range per hour of charging. The Bolt has a 238 mile range, which means that it can take more than a day to charge its battery with a Level 1 charger. As a result, this type of charging station is best for overnight use at home.

The type of charger makes a difference too, using a Tesla supercharger, it's 75 mins. A cheap residential charger is overnight.

Yes, I guarantee building codes will mandate electric charging infrastructure for all new construction in the near future (The new energy step code that went into effect Nov 1 may already have provisions for this).

For upgrades to existing buildings, it's not really hard (service upgrades to buildings happen all the time) just costly. I expect that as demand for chargers increases these building owners will need to start putting them in anyways.


I agree 100% on your comments about BC not being about the urban centres, and wouldn't agree with a BAN on ICE's, there are still many use-cases for ICE's. I say let EV technology mature and let the market sort it out. Like what happened when LED light bulbs came out, people were dumping their old incandescents well before the 2015 "ban" came into effect simply because the features and value of LED's were so much better and they came down massively in price point.

That's Level 3.

Typical Level 2 is ~7kW (30A, 240V) and will charge a Chevy Bolt from dead to full in 8 hours or so.

You have to play some serious mental gymnastics to even come close to a conclusion that any government can be "efficient" to any extent, much less Canada's government.

I think a fundamental issue between people arguing different views in this thread is a lack of understanding of how governments work. ALL government programs will eventually turn to shit and will cost tax payers more than the benefit it provides. This is because governments function outside of market forces and don't have to operate under supply and demand conditions. They regulate supply, control demand, and set their own prices. And when they run out of money they raise taxes.

And "misguided and misinformed". LOL irony at its finest. That picture was completely useless to any real discussion because it doesn't go into any detail. It's just a bunch of buzz words.

Ever heard the term relative? It's pretty obvious I meant efficient in comparison to other governments, not private businesses........... which do not and can not offer the services, most of which are not profitable, that governments do because their services end up being unfair or poor in the interest of profit margins at some point, particularly if it's a listed company. Or, even worse, they lie about their results which the government has much less interest in doing save for a few political situations. Government also cannot hide their financial activities like a corporation can, everything is transparent and accessible by any Canadian citizen/interested party at no cost to you including every worker's salary.

Your conclusion that government programs all turn to shit is the only thing ironic in either of our posts because private companies are WAY more likely to turn their service to shit in the long run and provide less for the customer while charging more, particularly if that business is a monopoly. Examples of this in our every day life are too numerous to even begin to list, be they services like TV or cell phone to the giant corporation of Apple itself. The direction and success of any government department rides on the minister in charge of it to provide direction much like a CEO would. There are, of course, good and bad ministers same as good or bad CEO's, but every single corporation is single-minded in its task to produce better results every year, particularly if its publicly traded, and those results are not usually achieved by providing a better product at a lower or equivalent price to the consumer. They're achieved by cutting costs using cheaper materials, moving production to cheaper countries, cutting workers, having a monopoly so the consumer has no choice or selling a brand image that belies the product.

You're also wrong that government agencies raise taxes when they run out of money. Raising taxes isn't even a last resort as it is political suicide for any elected official to do so... in lieu of this, government organizations restructure, reorganize and take on efficiency advice just like any company does. They move money around between programs. Some programs are forced to do without or halt certain projects they're working on or do more with less money. They have to eliminate part-time or casual staff or existing workers have to take on activities beyond their work descriptions. Budgets are set annually and overages are NOT permitted. So where are you getting your theory from since it's obviously not based on facts? It would appear that you are also very much misinformed.

In a private business/company if it bleeds/spends money like how our gov does that it will be bankrupt in no time coz no banks/investor will lend them money to run. However, when a gov is losing money or the program is going to shit and doesn't provide the benefit anymore, well the gov just increase tax to continue spend.

LOL?

I'm not aware of any private companies that would affect my life significantly (unless they were my employer) if they went out of business. Are you aware of how many services the government provides that no one else will and are necessary to your daily life? Also, see my edited post on the false belief that taxes just increase to make up for supposed overages which are NOT POSSIBLE because every organization has a hard cap budget every single year to start April.

Again, super misinformed.

To your point, its become abundantly apparent that a lot of posts are from individuals with no experience working in government whatsoever. Moreover, they speak to the lack of general knowledge on how departmental budgets are prescribed and how managers/policy-makers in the public service are responsible for abiding by the financial limits imposed on them by the government whilst responsible for carrying out government mandates.

I think the tech is still too much in its infancy to be pushing for it as hard as they seem to be (between 2040, the rebates, charger installs, etc). Just in the last couple years the charging tech has some a long way, so there's a decent chance of ending up with a bunch of useless infrastructure installed all over the place when new tech comes out.

Sure, Canada is “efficient” compared to Venezuela but it’s hardly efficient compared to Singapore. Regardless, I don’t even know how you could use the word “efficient” when talking about government. It’s like discussing whose shit stinks less because governments are inherently inefficient.

I’m not arguing for a complete free market. My point is that anything the government touches will eventually cost tax payers more than the benefits that are provided. Thus, we should limit the amount of power of the state.

I don’t see you think how private companies are more likely to provide worse service than the government.

- Private companies have to compete in the market place and if they are unable to, a different company that provides better value will take their place. Example: Blockbuster is gone and Netflix is thriving. If a company has to take a loan, they have to use operating profits to pay interest on those loans. Governments print money to pay for their loans.
- The fact that a company fails is not a problem. If a company is mismanaged, it should not and will not operate profitably. In fact, most businesses fail, and rightfully so; they are managed by people who should not be operating companies. Those same people are running the government! Except in this position they’re not going to be bankrupt, they're gonna keep an inefficient system running.
- Governments creates monopolies by creating barriers of entry to the marketplace. ICBC is a monopoly and we’re suffering because we have to pay insurance rates that are much higher than what we would have to pay if there was a free market.
- I don’t see how you can say that companies don’t provide better products and services. Sure, costs are minimized by outsourcing, which is the right thing to do. Why would you pay for more expensive labour if you don’t have to? In return companies can reduce prices. Iphones would be $20k if they were made in North America with the minimum wage and other terrible labour regulations. How do you explain electric cars, 4k TVs, smartphones, and almost everything else that has improved dramatically? The government was responsible?
- Apple is not a monopoly. In fact, Apple is responsible for improving technology to such a great extent that we have super-fast smartphones that are faster than desktops from 10 years ago. If the government was responsible for phones, we’d probably have some sort of palm pilot type device with 100 buttons.
- How am I wrong about the government increasing taxes? Wages aren’t the only things that are taxed. Also, why are BC Hydro and ICBC rates always going up? Hmmm…..
- Everything you said about government restructuring and reorganizing is honestly laughable. Just because a budget is set does not mean the money is used “efficiently”. It’s actually impossible for governments to be efficient. Here’s an example: when a government program is created, wages are set not based on anything comparable to market rates.

I see the fundamental difference between us. You believe that the government should be used to improve society. I believe that governments will eventually fail and that people should help themselves. It's kind of a socialism vs capitalism debate in a nutshell.

lol @ comparing countries to a city state

Governments can operate with a loss, and people can still get the services they need. Private companies are driven by profit. How does that profit happen? Cuts, cuts, and more cuts.

By cuts you mean efficiencies.
Profit also happens by providing a superior service/product than its competitors.

I don't even know where this discussion is going.
That the public sector can provide a better product and do it more efficiently? Lol

What about government funded research that has developed most, of the technology that we use today?

Governments actually pioneer knowledge, it's companies that take the ground breaking knowledge and refine it, and monetize it.

I'm sure apple didn't need the internet to be created to do so well though.

My entire public sector job is fixing fuck ups by private sector contractors for 1/4 of the price they charge, but sure ...

Lol you guys are cherry picking.

:lawl:

Using my own experiences is cherry-picking now?
I've worked in the public sector for 5 years, I worked in the private sector for 18 years prior to that.

Both have their pros and cons.

To say, unequivocally that one is better in every way and in every situation is asinine.

Fair enough.
I'll agree. there are advantages and disadvantages regarding innovation, quality, and efficiency in both public and private. Foolish of me to state in absolutes.