The Money Mustache Community
Around the World => Canada Discussion => Topic started by: PharmaStache on June 07, 2022, 03:36:38 PM
-
I'm starting to research our next vehicle purchase, and naturally I am looking into electric vehicles. None of them actually seem like a reasonable choice for my situation, and I'm hoping someone can confirm this or correct me. I live in a rural area of the prairies and mainly do highway driving to work and to the nearest city (100km each way). We also visit family a few times a year 400km away. Total km drive per year is 20k. And of course we have the typical prairie climate of winters down to -40.
Hybrid- no, that is for cities because of how the car charges itself
Battery only- no, in the winter I won't be able to drive those distances and there are issues with charging the battery when it is that cold anyway
PHEV- yes, the battery would work great in the spring/summer/fall. Would mainly use gas in the winter. However the high price offsets any savings.
Is the theory that once gas reaches a high enough price the PHEV would be a good option? When I do the calculations now based on $2 or $3/L I don't come out ahead with the PHEV.
Sorry if I got any of the terminology wrong!
-
What inputs are you using for your calculations that you aren’t coming out ahead at $2/L for a PHEV?
I’m also in disagreement that a hybrid is only sensible for cities. For rural driving it’s hard to beat a Prius in a strictly economic decision. Sure it does even slightly better in a city, but at 100km/hr it beats a civic or matrix handily.
-
The key is to find a good quality, discounted, used hybrid or PHEV car. Keep the premium low.
-
I strongly disagree with your stance on hybrids.
Hybrids (such as the toyota prius) are a great alternative and also get very good fuel economy on highway. Yes they do a bit better in the city but the highway mileage is great as well. I have driven a toyota prius in Alberta since 2014 and I'd never go back. It saves me a huge amount of money. Most of the time I can get around 5.0l/100km or better on a highway road trip. You wont find many other cars that will beat that. It has enough room to allow me to camp in the back or put a full size bike without taking a tire off. It works well in winter and summer and I can't think of a more appropriate vehicle.
PHEV (such as the Prius Prime) would also be great, but they are incredibly expensive and the math doesnt really work out well when you factor in the gas savings. If you find the right deal perhaps this could be a good choice but I find that the premium commanded just doesnt make sense.
The problem with EV's is that you do need a very long range EV for most Canadian driving. Long range EV's are insanely expensive right now. The cost simply doesn't make sense any which way you run the numbers compared to a hybrid. Also on route fast charging might even still be a problem (depending on where you are going and if there is a Supercharger or fast charger network in place). If you are new to EV's try renting one for day, researching charging networks, etc. For some people they can work great, for others not so great. I would love to have one myself, but I simply can't afford the insane prices of any EV with a ~400km range which is what I would need to make road trips work.
If you are looking for a budget option i'd go with a used second generation Toyota Prius (2004-2009).
-
PTF as me and my SO dream of one day being able to afford a Nissan Leaf
-
PTF as I have been considering a Prius Prime as my next car.
-
We were lucky to get a PHEV last year. We love it. All electric around town, gas for occasional longer trips. Cheaper than a full EV but we use it exclusively as an electric 90% of the time.
Then again, a new vehicle is a crazy luxury and I am not surprised if the numbers don't work for most people (yet). We also considered keeping our gas hatchback and adding a used leaf for around town.
-
I strongly disagree with your stance on hybrids.
Hybrids (such as the toyota prius) are a great alternative and also get very good fuel economy on highway. Yes they do a bit better in the city but the highway mileage is great as well. I have driven a toyota prius in Alberta since 2014 and I'd never go back. It saves me a huge amount of money. Most of the time I can get around 5.0l/100km or better on a highway road trip. You wont find many other cars that will beat that. It has enough room to allow me to camp in the back or put a full size bike without taking a tire off. It works well in winter and summer and I can't think of a more appropriate vehicle.
PHEV (such as the Prius Prime) would also be great, but they are incredibly expensive and the math doesnt really work out well when you factor in the gas savings. If you find the right deal perhaps this could be a good choice but I find that the premium commanded just doesnt make sense.
The problem with EV's is that you do need a very long range EV for most Canadian driving. Long range EV's are insanely expensive right now. The cost simply doesn't make sense any which way you run the numbers compared to a hybrid. Also on route fast charging might even still be a problem (depending on where you are going and if there is a Supercharger or fast charger network in place). If you are new to EV's try renting one for day, researching charging networks, etc. For some people they can work great, for others not so great. I would love to have one myself, but I simply can't afford the insane prices of any EV with a ~400km range which is what I would need to make road trips work.
If you are looking for a budget option i'd go with a used second generation Toyota Prius (2004-2009).
When I do the numbers.... We drive about 15000 km/year. In a prius, at 5L/100km, that would be 750L of fuel, about $1500 at today's prices. In a corolla, at 7L/100 km, that would be 1050L of fuel, about $2100 at today's prices.
A new prius lists at 30K and a new corolla lists at $20K. Neglecting tax and fees, the Corolla has a small advantage over a 15 year lifetime. I'm not sure if the Prius has a point where it needs major repairs - like a new battery - but the corolla would not.
Do you drive alot?
-
I actually agree with your math there given you are focused on new cars and probably in that case a new corolla is a better deal than a new Prius if the corolla will work for your purposes.
There is one issue I'd like to point out though: the Prius is larger and more capable than a standard corolla due its hatchback design. I also believe the interior of the Prius is more spacious than a corolla hatchback. But again - if comparing between the two and the Corolla meets your needs, I'd go for that.
My comparison degrades a bit when looking at new cars as the Prius has shrunken over the years. About 10 years ago the Prius was significantly larger than the corolla and corolla hatch, and for me the Corolla simply was just a bit too small (I need to be able to comfortably sleep in the back of my car with the seats laid flat and be able to lock a bicycle inside). The size difference doesn't appear to be that much any more as the newer Prius' have gotten smaller as they search for more fuel efficiency.
I still wouldn't discount the fact that right now most hybrids are a better deal when you run the numbers than a PHEV. I think you have made the point that perhaps just a small gas car is even cheaper in the long run than a hybrid.
I should also mention that a few years ago when gas prices were normal, the price of used hybrids was more in line with non-hybrids. Recently this equation has changed.
-
And to further answer your questions - battery replacements on Prius' are rare. They can happen, but the majority of them are in hot climates in the southern states where batteries are cooked in the sun. In cooler climates batteries don't seem to fail often, and now you can get rebuilt battery packs for a non-insane price. As far as I can tell hybrid Toyota batteries are incredibly reliable for at least 400,000 km's (basically, the life of the rest of the car). I'd be just as worried about the ICE engine or the motor generator or transaxle failing, but in general those are also quite reliable.
But to your point - the Corolla is also incredibly reliable and a great choice.
And depending on the year, yes I do drive a lot - mainly long road trips. My used hybrids were bought after studying the used market for many months and waiting for a good condition vehicle to pop up at below-market price and pouncing on them. In my opinion this is the best way to buy any car, but you have to have the time and patience and knowledge about the vehicle to do that.
-
We're really happy with our 2018 Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV. It has the space and 4WD for kids and gear in our rural ski town. 90+% of our trips are electric but we do not have range anxiety if we set out on a longer road trip. We're a single vehicle family and appreciate the simplicity of a good shared vehicle as opposed to maintaining two "beaters".
I expect our next vehicle (years down the road) will be fully electric. By then we'll be empty nesters, I'll wont be working and will have plenty of time for any extra logistics an EV brings.
-
you should be able to buy a used prius in the states for <$10k USD.
we bought a used chevy bolt (2017) just before moving to canada. in the winter, when it was -30C, range dropped to around 115km, so if you're truly traveling 100km at -40C, then you're probably screwed with a bolt (or similar, which all seem to have roughly comparable ranges). love the car. works awesome for us. just traveled 600km in the kootenays (partial work trip) and paid $0 to charge. for us, we'll never buy another gas vehicle again.
-
I live in northern Sweden where you can get temperatures down to -45 c. I don’t drive daily but my parents live about 400 km from were I stay. I concluded that I would need an EV with an range about 600 km to be sure to get to my parents in winter without stoppning to charge which would be a major pita. There are some cars in that range but it would be 60-70 k USD here. I will probably buy one in a couple of years as a company car but for now I could not justify buying it now due to my limited driving. I bought a slightly used Volvo that uses gas instead for a third of the price.
-
I live in northern Sweden where you can get temperatures down to -45 c. I don’t drive daily but my parents live about 400 km from were I stay. I concluded that I would need an EV with an range about 600 km to be sure to get to my parents in winter without stoppning to charge which would be a major pita. There are some cars in that range but it would be 60-70 k USD here. I will probably buy one in a couple of years as a company car but for now I could not justify buying it now due to my limited driving. I bought a slightly used Volvo that uses gas instead for a third of the price.
I'm curious why you consider stopping to charge a PITA in Sweden? Is it a lack of DC fast charging stations, or just the need to stop for 20 minutes on your journey?
-
I actually agree with your math there given you are focused on new cars and probably in that case a new corolla is a better deal than a new Prius if the corolla will work for your purposes.
There is one issue I'd like to point out though: the Prius is larger and more capable than a standard corolla due its hatchback design. I also believe the interior of the Prius is more spacious than a corolla hatchback. But again - if comparing between the two and the Corolla meets your needs, I'd go for that.
My comparison degrades a bit when looking at new cars as the Prius has shrunken over the years. About 10 years ago the Prius was significantly larger than the corolla and corolla hatch, and for me the Corolla simply was just a bit too small (I need to be able to comfortably sleep in the back of my car with the seats laid flat and be able to lock a bicycle inside). The size difference doesn't appear to be that much any more as the newer Prius' have gotten smaller as they search for more fuel efficiency.
I still wouldn't discount the fact that right now most hybrids are a better deal when you run the numbers than a PHEV. I think you have made the point that perhaps just a small gas car is even cheaper in the long run than a hybrid.
I should also mention that a few years ago when gas prices were normal, the price of used hybrids was more in line with non-hybrids. Recently this equation has changed.
I have no problem getting a road bike in the back seat of our corrola. Just pop both wheels off and you don't even need to involve the trunk. (Important to clean your bike first though, as grease will stain the upholstery.)
-
I live in northern Sweden where you can get temperatures down to -45 c. I don’t drive daily but my parents live about 400 km from were I stay. I concluded that I would need an EV with an range about 600 km to be sure to get to my parents in winter without stoppning to charge which would be a major pita. There are some cars in that range but it would be 60-70 k USD here. I will probably buy one in a couple of years as a company car but for now I could not justify buying it now due to my limited driving. I bought a slightly used Volvo that uses gas instead for a third of the price.
I'm curious why you consider stopping to charge a PITA in Sweden? Is it a lack of DC fast charging stations, or just the need to stop for 20 minutes on your journey?
They are currently building out fastcharging stations so that will not be a problem. The halfway stop or the future stops are pretty boring stops so stoppning for 20 minutes on a gas station would not be something to look forward to. I don’t normally stop after only two hours of driving. I want at least drive for 3-4 hours before stoppning.
-
I actually agree with your math there given you are focused on new cars and probably in that case a new corolla is a better deal than a new Prius if the corolla will work for your purposes.
There is one issue I'd like to point out though: the Prius is larger and more capable than a standard corolla due its hatchback design. I also believe the interior of the Prius is more spacious than a corolla hatchback. But again - if comparing between the two and the Corolla meets your needs, I'd go for that.
My comparison degrades a bit when looking at new cars as the Prius has shrunken over the years. About 10 years ago the Prius was significantly larger than the corolla and corolla hatch, and for me the Corolla simply was just a bit too small (I need to be able to comfortably sleep in the back of my car with the seats laid flat and be able to lock a bicycle inside). The size difference doesn't appear to be that much any more as the newer Prius' have gotten smaller as they search for more fuel efficiency.
I still wouldn't discount the fact that right now most hybrids are a better deal when you run the numbers than a PHEV. I think you have made the point that perhaps just a small gas car is even cheaper in the long run than a hybrid.
I should also mention that a few years ago when gas prices were normal, the price of used hybrids was more in line with non-hybrids. Recently this equation has changed.
I have no problem getting a road bike in the back seat of our corrola. Just pop both wheels off and you don't even need to involve the trunk. (Important to clean your bike first though, as grease will stain the upholstery.)
How do you prevent it from ”bouncing” around? I normally put my bikes in the trunk and push the backseats down but would love to find an easiest way. I can’t lift them up on the roof.
-
I actually agree with your math there given you are focused on new cars and probably in that case a new corolla is a better deal than a new Prius if the corolla will work for your purposes.
There is one issue I'd like to point out though: the Prius is larger and more capable than a standard corolla due its hatchback design. I also believe the interior of the Prius is more spacious than a corolla hatchback. But again - if comparing between the two and the Corolla meets your needs, I'd go for that.
My comparison degrades a bit when looking at new cars as the Prius has shrunken over the years. About 10 years ago the Prius was significantly larger than the corolla and corolla hatch, and for me the Corolla simply was just a bit too small (I need to be able to comfortably sleep in the back of my car with the seats laid flat and be able to lock a bicycle inside). The size difference doesn't appear to be that much any more as the newer Prius' have gotten smaller as they search for more fuel efficiency.
I still wouldn't discount the fact that right now most hybrids are a better deal when you run the numbers than a PHEV. I think you have made the point that perhaps just a small gas car is even cheaper in the long run than a hybrid.
I should also mention that a few years ago when gas prices were normal, the price of used hybrids was more in line with non-hybrids. Recently this equation has changed.
I have no problem getting a road bike in the back seat of our corrola. Just pop both wheels off and you don't even need to involve the trunk. (Important to clean your bike first though, as grease will stain the upholstery.)
How do you prevent it from ”bouncing” around? I normally put my bikes in the trunk and push the backseats down but would love to find an easiest way. I can’t lift them up on the roof.
Frame upside down and wedged between passenger seat and rear seat (just slide the passenger seat back until it's snug). You will have to play a bit with the passenger seat tilt to get a good angle to wedge it. Then both wheels on the back seat or in the trunk.
-
I actually agree with your math there given you are focused on new cars and probably in that case a new corolla is a better deal than a new Prius if the corolla will work for your purposes.
There is one issue I'd like to point out though: the Prius is larger and more capable than a standard corolla due its hatchback design. I also believe the interior of the Prius is more spacious than a corolla hatchback. But again - if comparing between the two and the Corolla meets your needs, I'd go for that.
My comparison degrades a bit when looking at new cars as the Prius has shrunken over the years. About 10 years ago the Prius was significantly larger than the corolla and corolla hatch, and for me the Corolla simply was just a bit too small (I need to be able to comfortably sleep in the back of my car with the seats laid flat and be able to lock a bicycle inside). The size difference doesn't appear to be that much any more as the newer Prius' have gotten smaller as they search for more fuel efficiency.
I still wouldn't discount the fact that right now most hybrids are a better deal when you run the numbers than a PHEV. I think you have made the point that perhaps just a small gas car is even cheaper in the long run than a hybrid.
I should also mention that a few years ago when gas prices were normal, the price of used hybrids was more in line with non-hybrids. Recently this equation has changed.
I have no problem getting a road bike in the back seat of our corrola. Just pop both wheels off and you don't even need to involve the trunk. (Important to clean your bike first though, as grease will stain the upholstery.)
How do you prevent it from ”bouncing” around? I normally put my bikes in the trunk and push the backseats down but would love to find an easiest way. I can’t lift them up on the roof.
Frame upside down and wedged between passenger seat and rear seat (just slide the passenger seat back until it's snug). You will have to play a bit with the passenger seat tilt to get a good angle to wedge it. Then both wheels on the back seat or in the trunk.
Thanks, i will try it. Nowadays, I am mostly transporting the triathlon bike and the mtb.
-
I actually agree with your math there given you are focused on new cars and probably in that case a new corolla is a better deal than a new Prius if the corolla will work for your purposes.
There is one issue I'd like to point out though: the Prius is larger and more capable than a standard corolla due its hatchback design. I also believe the interior of the Prius is more spacious than a corolla hatchback. But again - if comparing between the two and the Corolla meets your needs, I'd go for that.
My comparison degrades a bit when looking at new cars as the Prius has shrunken over the years. About 10 years ago the Prius was significantly larger than the corolla and corolla hatch, and for me the Corolla simply was just a bit too small (I need to be able to comfortably sleep in the back of my car with the seats laid flat and be able to lock a bicycle inside). The size difference doesn't appear to be that much any more as the newer Prius' have gotten smaller as they search for more fuel efficiency.
I still wouldn't discount the fact that right now most hybrids are a better deal when you run the numbers than a PHEV. I think you have made the point that perhaps just a small gas car is even cheaper in the long run than a hybrid.
I should also mention that a few years ago when gas prices were normal, the price of used hybrids was more in line with non-hybrids. Recently this equation has changed.
I have no problem getting a road bike in the back seat of our corrola. Just pop both wheels off and you don't even need to involve the trunk. (Important to clean your bike first though, as grease will stain the upholstery.)
How do you prevent it from ”bouncing” around? I normally put my bikes in the trunk and push the backseats down but would love to find an easiest way. I can’t lift them up on the roof.
Frame upside down and wedged between passenger seat and rear seat (just slide the passenger seat back until it's snug). You will have to play a bit with the passenger seat tilt to get a good angle to wedge it. Then both wheels on the back seat or in the trunk.
Thanks, i will try it. Nowadays, I am mostly transporting the triathlon bike and the mtb.
If you care about your upholstery, pop a tarp or something over the seats first too. :P It's really hard to get a bike clean enough to not need that.
-
Where did the OP go?
-
I actually agree with your math there given you are focused on new cars and probably in that case a new corolla is a better deal than a new Prius if the corolla will work for your purposes.
There is one issue I'd like to point out though: the Prius is larger and more capable than a standard corolla due its hatchback design. I also believe the interior of the Prius is more spacious than a corolla hatchback. But again - if comparing between the two and the Corolla meets your needs, I'd go for that.
My comparison degrades a bit when looking at new cars as the Prius has shrunken over the years. About 10 years ago the Prius was significantly larger than the corolla and corolla hatch, and for me the Corolla simply was just a bit too small (I need to be able to comfortably sleep in the back of my car with the seats laid flat and be able to lock a bicycle inside). The size difference doesn't appear to be that much any more as the newer Prius' have gotten smaller as they search for more fuel efficiency.
I still wouldn't discount the fact that right now most hybrids are a better deal when you run the numbers than a PHEV. I think you have made the point that perhaps just a small gas car is even cheaper in the long run than a hybrid.
I should also mention that a few years ago when gas prices were normal, the price of used hybrids was more in line with non-hybrids. Recently this equation has changed.
I have no problem getting a road bike in the back seat of our corrola. Just pop both wheels off and you don't even need to involve the trunk. (Important to clean your bike first though, as grease will stain the upholstery.)
How do you prevent it from ”bouncing” around? I normally put my bikes in the trunk and push the backseats down but would love to find an easiest way. I can’t lift them up on the roof.
Frame upside down and wedged between passenger seat and rear seat (just slide the passenger seat back until it's snug). You will have to play a bit with the passenger seat tilt to get a good angle to wedge it. Then both wheels on the back seat or in the trunk.
Thanks, i will try it. Nowadays, I am mostly transporting the triathlon bike and the mtb.
If you care about your upholstery, pop a tarp or something over the seats first too. :P It's really hard to get a bike clean enough to not need that.
My problem is that I have white leatherseats in the car so I need a tarp anyway.
-
....or seat covers.
-
....or seat covers.
Not worth it. I don’t have kids to mess them up.
-
and here I was hoping this thread was for Mustachians.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/opinion-electric-vehicles-car-dependence-1.6534893
Our government should be doing much more to get Canadians out of cars altogether
Greenwashing operations
Those figures sound great to the mining industry, which hopes to use EVs to greenwash its operations, but they have severe human and environmental consequences throughout the supply chain.
The "lithium triangle" in South America is poised to be a significant source of the mineral, but already it's polluting the water and lowering the water table, threatening fresh water access for local communities.
Meanwhile, the site of much of the world's cobalt extraction in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) experiences high rates of birth defects, contaminated water, and around 40,000 children are believed to work in artisanal mines. In 2019, electric carmaker Tesla was among a number of companies named in a lawsuit over child deaths at cobalt mines in the DRC.
-
and here I was hoping this thread was for Mustachians.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/opinion-electric-vehicles-car-dependence-1.6534893
Our government should be doing much more to get Canadians out of cars altogether
Greenwashing operations
Those figures sound great to the mining industry, which hopes to use EVs to greenwash its operations, but they have severe human and environmental consequences throughout the supply chain.
The "lithium triangle" in South America is poised to be a significant source of the mineral, but already it's polluting the water and lowering the water table, threatening fresh water access for local communities.
Meanwhile, the site of much of the world's cobalt extraction in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) experiences high rates of birth defects, contaminated water, and around 40,000 children are believed to work in artisanal mines. In 2019, electric carmaker Tesla was among a number of companies named in a lawsuit over child deaths at cobalt mines in the DRC.
Make you wonder if Paris Marx (the author) owns a vehicle.
-
The younger generations that we interact with are shunning cars altogether, living in a big city were transit, bike paths and car shares are prevalent. Check the rest of Paris' articles, I won't be surprised if the answer is no, they don't own a car.
Feel free to ask Paris on IG or Twitter. My bet is no.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CgCOSjxu7i4/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
-
#1 ---- does anyone in here actually own a full EV for a long time? I did and also drove a 280km range EV 1/3 of the way across Canada. So much misinformation out there on how well the batteries last, how amazingly powerful even the smallest EV are, how smooth and nice they are to drive (quiet) and of course how easy they are to drive.
#2 --- the problem for the OP is they live in Saskatchewan, I think the only place in North America that is "charging" you an extra tax to own an EV and they have also invested basically zero in charing networks as a government. They have relied on municipalities , federal gov and private business. Come to BC where it is the highest EV ownership and sales per capita in NorthAmerica to truly understand what is possibly for daily life in an EV, ease of charging and mass transformation of the driving population.
#3 --- 100% what @Heckler said, I realized that we needed to drive way less and having 2 cars was crazy. I sold the EV, kept my old miles out SUV and ride or walk almost everywhere I can. This is the true focus on where life and society should be, we are just exchanging one car cult mode of transport for another while not actually improving the lives of ourselves or our communities.
Follow "War on Cars" podcast or "Not Just Bikes" youtube for amazing content. @Chaplin transformed my outlook on this, heck he owns an EV but together we push each other to ride everywhere and leave cars at home.
-
The younger generations that we interact with are shunning cars altogether, living in a big city were transit, bike paths and car shares are prevalent. Check the rest of Paris' articles, I won't be surprised if the answer is no, they don't own a car.
Feel free to ask Paris on IG or Twitter. My bet is no.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CgCOSjxu7i4/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
I didn’t own a car when I lived in a big city because it was not necessary. I used car share and car rental for longer periods. After moving to a smaller city I stilled lived without a car for 6 months wereafter I reluctantly bought a car. As I know live within driving distance to my parents it became a hassle trying to rent a car for the holidays or relying on someone else. No public transport would take me the whole way. To visit my grandfather someone had to pick me up at the bus or trainstation and get me back because you can’t take a bike on the train. Without no car shares the car rental became an expensive hassle because I had to pay for international insurance to be able to take the car across the border to Finland.
My point is that it is easy to promote being carfree in a bigger city. It is a lot harder if you want or need to have transport to the countryside. My car is mostly parked, while I walk to most places as I have chosen to live in the city center.
-
My point is that it is easy to promote being carfree in a bigger city. It is a lot harder if you want or need to have transport to the countryside. My car is mostly parked, while I walk to most places as I have chosen to live in the city center.
Very true, this is how it is for me. I live in a small town that is amazing to ride everywhere and has all I need. Easy to leave the house by foot or bike and never drive the car. That is until I want to go anywhere else like Nanaimo or Victoria, transit is horrible and doesn't work well on express long distance routes. Equally car shares like Modo are only in the big cities. So the effort becomes to drive as little as possible and go by bike or foot as much as possible.
** I must admit my pursuit of recreational activities makes me suck in this department & the biggest reason I still drive so much. You could label it is a selfish consumerism but right now it is the only way to go. Driving an old used ICED for as longs as possible (if it is fuel efficient) has a lower impact than a brand new EV.
-
So much misinformation out there on how well the batteries last, how amazingly powerful even the smallest EV are, how smooth and nice they are to drive (quiet) and of course how easy they are to drive.
please elaborate. Is this e-sarc? Which is the misinformation? Do batteries last forever, or are they scrap in a year, like the e-bikes my wife sells?
Our big city townhouse complex has at least 25% EV, or hybrids now. I love and hate how quiet they are!
-
My point is that it is easy to promote being carfree in a bigger city.
Then tell me why we have nothing but shitty traffic, I'm sure in Toronto & Vancouver, but I also expect in Calgary, Edmonton, maybe Regina...
Heck, even Courtney/Comox had a traffic jam last time I drove through on Wednesday!
-
My point is that it is easy to promote being carfree in a bigger city.
Then tell me why we have nothing but shitty traffic, I'm sure in Toronto & Vancouver, but I also expect in Calgary, Edmonton, maybe Regina...
Heck, even Courtney/Comox had a traffic jam last time I drove through on Wednesday!
As I wrote it is easy to promote, not to get people to change their habits. We have politicians from s green party that are all the time promoting a car free existence or less driving while they are living in the big cities were you can easily manage going carfree. They sound totally tone deaf to the population in the north of the country and in the countryside.
-
My point is that it is easy to promote being carfree in a bigger city.
Then tell me why we have nothing but shitty traffic, I'm sure in Toronto & Vancouver, but I also expect in Calgary, Edmonton, maybe Regina...
Heck, even Courtney/Comox had a traffic jam last time I drove through on Wednesday!
As I wrote it is easy to promote, not to get people to change their habits. We have politicians from s green party that are all the time promoting a car free existence or less driving while they are living in the big cities were you can easily manage going carfree. They sound totally tone deaf to the population in the north of the country and in the countryside.
By their nature, rural areas tend to be more environmentally damaging than cities on a per capita basis. At some point we'll have to stop subsidizing the bad behaviour (through road building, cell/internet coverage, power grid distribution, mail distribution, etc.) and then let rural people choose to pay the true costs of their lifestyle or relocate.
-
My point is that it is easy to promote being carfree in a bigger city.
Then tell me why we have nothing but shitty traffic, I'm sure in Toronto & Vancouver, but I also expect in Calgary, Edmonton, maybe Regina...
Heck, even Courtney/Comox had a traffic jam last time I drove through on Wednesday!
As I wrote it is easy to promote, not to get people to change their habits. We have politicians from s green party that are all the time promoting a car free existence or less driving while they are living in the big cities were you can easily manage going carfree. They sound totally tone deaf to the population in the north of the country and in the countryside.
By their nature, rural areas tend to be more environmentally damaging than cities on a per capita basis. At some point we'll have to stop subsidizing the bad behaviour (through road building, cell/internet coverage, power grid distribution, mail distribution, etc.) and then let rural people choose to pay the true costs of their lifestyle or relocate.
That is a very urban attitude. When you say rural are you including all the small towns and villages? Do you have studies? I got upset at this statement as someone who lived in rural areas for decades. Starts to explain why so many political groupings and issues are more rural/urban than any other factor.
Those rural areas are probably popular because they are LCOL areas. Or they are places where people have lived for a few generations. And people have cheaper housing but more living expenses - i.e. cars. And lots of people live there and have jobs there and lives there. And true rural people mostly shop in the nearest town/village - when I lived on a rural road my local grocery store was 6.2 km away with one stop sign and no traffic light. Here in a city near Toronto my nearest grocery store (not Walmart) is 4 km away but with several traffic lights. I imagine my carbon footprint will be larger here. When you live really out in the country you probably drive less than people in suburbs, since people mostly live a lot closer to work, not half way across a city.
Hydro One charges a lot more for rural service, it isn't a freebie. Plus - at this point internet coverage is an essential service. Lots of people in small towns and rural areas are very dependent on internet coverage. This was particularly noticeable when kids had to be home-schooled during Covid lock-down. There are companies that specifically service rural areas - I was with Xplornet for years, Bell and others did not provide service.
Plus rural people don't take industrial development as a given - when I lived in the country people were very concerned about what kind of industry was planning to move in. Farming is not comfortable with heavy industry.
To me the suburbs where there is nothing but housing are the biggest environmental issue. There is no nearby shopping and poor public transit so generally people have to drive. There are no jobs right in the community because it is all housing. People are not doing things that lower their carbon footprint like gardening, especially vegetable/fruit gardening. The houses are far enough apart that running all the municipal services are expensive but not as obviously expensive as rural areas. In Montreal's older suburbs there were small groceries and hardware stores and other shops on the main street, easy walking distance. In newer suburbs those don't exist.
I'll get off my soapbox now.
-
My point is that it is easy to promote being carfree in a bigger city.
Then tell me why we have nothing but shitty traffic, I'm sure in Toronto & Vancouver, but I also expect in Calgary, Edmonton, maybe Regina...
Heck, even Courtney/Comox had a traffic jam last time I drove through on Wednesday!
As I wrote it is easy to promote, not to get people to change their habits. We have politicians from s green party that are all the time promoting a car free existence or less driving while they are living in the big cities were you can easily manage going carfree. They sound totally tone deaf to the population in the north of the country and in the countryside.
By their nature, rural areas tend to be more environmentally damaging than cities on a per capita basis. At some point we'll have to stop subsidizing the bad behaviour (through road building, cell/internet coverage, power grid distribution, mail distribution, etc.) and then let rural people choose to pay the true costs of their lifestyle or relocate.
That is a very urban attitude. When you say rural are you including all the small towns and villages? Do you have studies? I got upset at this statement as someone who lived in rural areas for decades. Starts to explain why so many political groupings and issues are more rural/urban than any other factor.
Those rural areas are probably popular because they are LCOL areas. Or they are places where people have lived for a few generations. And people have cheaper housing but more living expenses - i.e. cars. And lots of people live there and have jobs there and lives there. And true rural people mostly shop in the nearest town/village - when I lived on a rural road my local grocery store was 6.2 km away with one stop sign and no traffic light. Here in a city near Toronto my nearest grocery store (not Walmart) is 4 km away but with several traffic lights. I imagine my carbon footprint will be larger here. When you live really out in the country you probably drive less than people in suburbs, since people mostly live a lot closer to work, not half way across a city.
Hydro One charges a lot more for rural service, it isn't a freebie. Plus - at this point internet coverage is an essential service. Lots of people in small towns and rural areas are very dependent on internet coverage. This was particularly noticeable when kids had to be home-schooled during Covid lock-down. There are companies that specifically service rural areas - I was with Xplornet for years, Bell and others did not provide service.
Plus rural people don't take industrial development as a given - when I lived in the country people were very concerned about what kind of industry was planning to move in. Farming is not comfortable with heavy industry.
To me the suburbs where there is nothing but housing are the biggest environmental issue. There is no nearby shopping and poor public transit so generally people have to drive. There are no jobs right in the community because it is all housing. People are not doing things that lower their carbon footprint like gardening, especially vegetable/fruit gardening. The houses are far enough apart that running all the municipal services are expensive but not as obviously expensive as rural areas. In Montreal's older suburbs there were small groceries and hardware stores and other shops on the main street, easy walking distance. In newer suburbs those don't exist.
I'll get off my soapbox now.
https://www.livescience.com/13772-city-slicker-country-bumpkin-smaller-carbon-footprint.html
The IIED report, which was published in 2009, spawned 20 or 30 follow-up studies, all of which told a similarly positive story about urbanization. "[All of the] studies have shown that urbanization can have benefits in terms of lowering greenhouse gas emissions," Dodman told Life's Little Mysteries.
-
https://www.livescience.com/13772-city-slicker-country-bumpkin-smaller-carbon-footprint.html
The IIED report, which was published in 2009, spawned 20 or 30 follow-up studies, all of which told a similarly positive story about urbanization. "[All of the] studies have shown that urbanization can have benefits in terms of lowering greenhouse gas emissions," Dodman told Life's Little Mysteries.
[/quote]
I'll take a look. I hope it looked at suburbs carefully.
Of course what I really want is Amsterdam transplanted to North America - I have been watching too much Not Just Bikes.
-
My point is that it is easy to promote being carfree in a bigger city.
Then tell me why we have nothing but shitty traffic, I'm sure in Toronto & Vancouver, but I also expect in Calgary, Edmonton, maybe Regina...
Heck, even Courtney/Comox had a traffic jam last time I drove through on Wednesday!
As I wrote it is easy to promote, not to get people to change their habits. We have politicians from s green party that are all the time promoting a car free existence or less driving while they are living in the big cities were you can easily manage going carfree. They sound totally tone deaf to the population in the north of the country and in the countryside.
By their nature, rural areas tend to be more environmentally damaging than cities on a per capita basis. At some point we'll have to stop subsidizing the bad behaviour (through road building, cell/internet coverage, power grid distribution, mail distribution, etc.) and then let rural people choose to pay the true costs of their lifestyle or relocate.
That is a very urban attitude. When you say rural are you including all the small towns and villages? Do you have studies? I got upset at this statement as someone who lived in rural areas for decades. Starts to explain why so many political groupings and issues are more rural/urban than any other factor.
JLee posted a pretty good study. I can find more if you want.
It makes sense when you think about it. Per capita, it's more environmentally damaging to live in rural areas because you don't get the benefit of grouping costs. A stretch of road that's 10 km long and is used by 1000 people a year to get around in a rural area does about the same environmental damage as one that's 10 km long and is used by 100,000 people in an urban area. But the urban area will move a lot more people by public transit and bike. And they require the same amount of salting/plowing during the winter (arguably more because traffic tends to melt snow) to service fewer folks.
FWIW, I spent my whole childhood living in a very rural small town up north. . . and regularly visit my dad's (very rural) farm in the middle of nowhere outside of Ottawa. There are a great many reasons not to like cities. There are many reasons why I would still prefer to be living in a rural area. But environmentally it's hard to argue that it's a better option.
Those rural areas are probably popular because they are LCOL areas. Or they are places where people have lived for a few generations. And people have cheaper housing but more living expenses - i.e. cars. And lots of people live there and have jobs there and lives there. And true rural people mostly shop in the nearest town/village - when I lived on a rural road my local grocery store was 6.2 km away with one stop sign and no traffic light. Here in a city near Toronto my nearest grocery store (not Walmart) is 4 km away but with several traffic lights. I imagine my carbon footprint will be larger here. When you live really out in the country you probably drive less than people in suburbs, since people mostly live a lot closer to work, not half way across a city.
You can't force people to change their habits, all you can do is provide them with other options. For rural people, there is typically no real option besides driving. In a city there will be availability of transit and typically some (usually terrible) cycling infrastructure. It becomes more of a choice.
Hydro One charges a lot more for rural service, it isn't a freebie. Plus - at this point internet coverage is an essential service. Lots of people in small towns and rural areas are very dependent on internet coverage. This was particularly noticeable when kids had to be home-schooled during Covid lock-down. There are companies that specifically service rural areas - I was with Xplornet for years, Bell and others did not provide service.
Hydro One charges charges more for rural service, but rural customers don't pay full costs of the service they get. That higher price is after subsidies and limits on what is allowed to be charged (https://www.oeb.ca/newsroom/2017/fair-hydro-act-2017 (https://www.oeb.ca/newsroom/2017/fair-hydro-act-2017)). Federally we are gifting billions of dollars to encourage companies to provide internet to rural areas (https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/high-speed-internet-canada/en (https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/high-speed-internet-canada/en)). I think that if people had to pay the true costs of living for where they live, then they would probably choose less environmentally damaging options.
Plus rural people don't take industrial development as a given - when I lived in the country people were very concerned about what kind of industry was planning to move in. Farming is not comfortable with heavy industry.
ANYONE living near heavy industry is very concerned about it (and with good historical reason).
To me the suburbs where there is nothing but housing are the biggest environmental issue. There is no nearby shopping and poor public transit so generally people have to drive. There are no jobs right in the community because it is all housing. People are not doing things that lower their carbon footprint like gardening, especially vegetable/fruit gardening. The houses are far enough apart that running all the municipal services are expensive but not as obviously expensive as rural areas. In Montreal's older suburbs there were small groceries and hardware stores and other shops on the main street, easy walking distance. In newer suburbs those don't exist.
Agreed. The modern trend of suburbs being planned around car dependence desperately needs to change. Multiple small single family homes is a waste of space in cities. I think the case can be made that many suburbs are less environmentally efficient than higher density areas of the city.
Full disclosure - I'm currently living in a suburb in Scarborough. It's not all bad - I have eight different supermarkets that I can bike to in a 4km radius. There's also a drug store, multiple convenience stores, hair cutting places, a library, two hardware stores, etc. There is a bus stop about 100 meters from my house. It's possible to get by without using a car (I did for more than five years before my son was born), but it's certainly a more difficult path to take than should be necessary.
-
My point is that it is easy to promote being carfree in a bigger city.
Then tell me why we have nothing but shitty traffic, I'm sure in Toronto & Vancouver, but I also expect in Calgary, Edmonton, maybe Regina...
Heck, even Courtney/Comox had a traffic jam last time I drove through on Wednesday!
As I wrote it is easy to promote, not to get people to change their habits. We have politicians from s green party that are all the time promoting a car free existence or less driving while they are living in the big cities were you can easily manage going carfree. They sound totally tone deaf to the population in the north of the country and in the countryside.
By their nature, rural areas tend to be more environmentally damaging than cities on a per capita basis. At some point we'll have to stop subsidizing the bad behaviour (through road building, cell/internet coverage, power grid distribution, mail distribution, etc.) and then let rural people choose to pay the true costs of their lifestyle or relocate.
At least in Sweden most of the electricitty is produced in rural areas so most of the country would not have elelctricity if not for hydro- and windpower in rural areas. If the rural areas got the money for the production, they would be subsidizing the cities. One of our major cities are among the top communities in receiving taxsubsidies from other parts of the country.
Sweden has until the last years always had plenty of low cost electricity. The country is divided into four areas of electricity were the north has massive amount of hydropower and windpower production while the South has had nuclear power. Due to closure of some nuclear plants they lack the necessary amounts of electricity so they have to import with really high european prices.
The most northern part has low electricity prices. Sometimes 10 or 100 times lower. Now they are screaming in the southern parts that they need new grids for larger transfers of the electricity from north to South. In the South, there are a really NIMBY mentality regarding windpower even out at sea. The politicians are talking about new nuclear but that would not help in the next 15 years. The state are subsidizing the power grids needed for transfer.
The funny thing is that there are plans for fossilfree production of steel, fossilfree mining and other factories based on fossilfree energy so when those grids would be ready there are NO electricity to transfer south because the demand will be bigger then the current production in north. The message from the more rural areas in north are becoming more and more. Produce your own f#@%ing electricity. We have had enough of sudsidizing you.
From an environmental perspective, the best solution would probably be if we lived in highrises in cities. We could squeese in the population of the country in one big city. We can leave some farmers outside of the city for food production.
-
Reading Plina's post, the words James Bay came to mind. ;-)
-
Reading Plina's post, the words James Bay came to mind. ;-)
If I Google the name a singer comes up so I think you need to elaborate a little bit. :-)
-
https://www.livescience.com/13772-city-slicker-country-bumpkin-smaller-carbon-footprint.html
The IIED report, which was published in 2009, spawned 20 or 30 follow-up studies, all of which told a similarly positive story about urbanization. "[All of the] studies have shown that urbanization can have benefits in terms of lowering greenhouse gas emissions," Dodman told Life's Little Mysteries.
I'll take a look. I hope it looked at suburbs carefully.
Of course what I really want is Amsterdam transplanted to North America - I have been watching too much Not Just Bikes.
[/quote]
Update
I looked, it was old (2009), very general, and used New York as the city, and New York is well known to be very low carbon compared to a lot of cities. It also doesn't talk about all the activities happening else where that support the city.
But as I said, very general. No in depth analysis, no urban/inner suburbs/outer suburbs/rural comparison. No data.
So, just thoughts off the top of my head:
When we talk "rural", are we including all the small towns? Because the existence of small towns means people living in them are walking, cycling, short drive distance to everything. And they provide resources so that people living on country roads don't have to drive far to get to those resources. Remove the small towns and people in the country now have to drive longer distances. Believe me, I have seen this where I used to live - when a bank or a grocery store pulled out of a small town it had huge effects on people's resource base. But of course small towns need roads to link one to another and to larger population centres.
All those country roads that need plowing and power lines that need to be strung? In agricultural areas they would be there anyway, because the roads to the farms still need to be plowed, and the power still needs to go to the farms. Anyone who knows anyone with a dairy farm knows that power outages are disasters for them. The cows need their water (no water if no power for the well pump, no municipal water, remember) and they need to be milked. Same with keeping the roads clear, supplies need to get to the farms, and the milk trucks have to get to the farms. Same for any other livestock, minus the milking. If you want the feed for livestock to get to the farms you need roads, and how are the chickens and eggs and beef and hogs going to get to the abattoir and then to the butcher and grocery store without roads that can carry trucks? Not just cars, trucks. And big tractors. And combines. Do you realize how big a combine is? It is 2 lanes wide. I saw all of those on my quiet country road. Between farm methane for power generation and solar and small wind turbines I expect more farms will become self-sufficient for electricity, but they are not there now. And is it better for every rural house to be generating its own electricity? Truly rural houses are already handling their own water supply (wells) and waste water disposal (septic systems) which is why large lots (acre plus) are required - you need space for a septic tank and leach field, and a minimum distance between that and the well. All those "wasteful lawns" are probably over leach fields, where you do not want anything with deep roots (like trees and bushes). In terms of precipitation management rural areas are better, the rain and snow sink into the ground more, less runoff. Lots of gravel driveways instead of pavement. In urban areas runoff after storms can be a big issue, raw sewage in the Ottawa River is a regular story around Ottawa after big storms. And lucky everyone downriver.
From a municipality perspective it is financially better to have more than just farms. If farmers sell off acre or 2 acre lots on roads, they have not lost a lot of field area, but the municipality will have a stronger tax base, the utilities will have more customers per km of road, and there will be more people to keep the banks and the grocery stores and the local schools going.
You could argue more against cottage country, especially if it is only cottages. Second residences so not essential, all the roads and power lines needed. Especially all the plowing for winter cottages. Of course they are now essential for the economies of the local towns.
I am guessing outer suburbs with nothing but houses, no shopping, few local jobs, are probably the worst. They are totally car centric.
I am not going to even discuss subsidies, becasue that is not a balanced discussion when we look at all the other subsidies. And part of a government's job is to make the basics available to everyone and at this point electricity and internet and driveable roads (except in really remote locations) are essential. And for longer travel, please remember that a lot of rural areas used to have good train service to larger cities, and that is gone. Public transit is becoming more and more an urban perk, those in rural areas get left out.
Anyway, just my viewpoint from having lived in rural areas as a non-farmer for decades.
-
Reading Plina's post, the words James Bay came to mind. ;-)
If I Google the name a singer comes up so I think you need to elaborate a little bit. :-)
There is a singer named James Bay?
You were talking electricity generation - Jams Bay is the location of a major power dam run by Hydro-Quebec.
Lots of environmental and social effects, people weren't as careful in the 1970s as they are now. Plus long-distance power lines are vulnerable, when we had a huge ice storm in January 1998, Montreal lost 5 of the 6 power lines from James Bay. Temperatures went from near 0C (which is why it was ice, not snow) to highs of -20 and lows around -30 for the next few weeks. It was rough.
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/james-bay-project (https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/james-bay-project)
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/ice-storm-1998-1.4469977 (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/ice-storm-1998-1.4469977)
-
https://www.livescience.com/13772-city-slicker-country-bumpkin-smaller-carbon-footprint.html
The IIED report, which was published in 2009, spawned 20 or 30 follow-up studies, all of which told a similarly positive story about urbanization. "[All of the] studies have shown that urbanization can have benefits in terms of lowering greenhouse gas emissions," Dodman told Life's Little Mysteries.
I'll take a look. I hope it looked at suburbs carefully.
Of course what I really want is Amsterdam transplanted to North America - I have been watching too much Not Just Bikes.
Update
I looked, it was old (2009), very general, and used New York as the city, and New York is well known to be very low carbon compared to a lot of cities. It also doesn't talk about all the activities happening else where that support the city.
But as I said, very general. No in depth analysis, no urban/inner suburbs/outer suburbs/rural comparison. No data.
So, just thoughts off the top of my head:
When we talk "rural", are we including all the small towns? Because the existence of small towns means people living in them are walking, cycling, short drive distance to everything. And they provide resources so that people living on country roads don't have to drive far to get to those resources. Remove the small towns and people in the country now have to drive longer distances. Believe me, I have seen this where I used to live - when a bank or a grocery store pulled out of a small town it had huge effects on people's resource base. But of course small towns need roads to link one to another and to larger population centres.
All those country roads that need plowing and power lines that need to be strung? In agricultural areas they would be there anyway, because the roads to the farms still need to be plowed, and the power still needs to go to the farms. Anyone who knows anyone with a dairy farm knows that power outages are disasters for them. The cows need their water (no water if no power for the well pump, no municipal water, remember) and they need to be milked. Same with keeping the roads clear, supplies need to get to the farms, and the milk trucks have to get to the farms. Same for any other livestock, minus the milking. If you want the feed for livestock to get to the farms you need roads, and how are the chickens and eggs and beef and hogs going to get to the abattoir and then to the butcher and grocery store without roads that can carry trucks? Not just cars, trucks. And big tractors. And combines. Do you realize how big a combine is? It is 2 lanes wide. I saw all of those on my quiet country road. Between farm methane for power generation and solar and small wind turbines I expect more farms will become self-sufficient for electricity, but they are not there now. And is it better for every rural house to be generating its own electricity? Truly rural houses are already handling their own water supply (wells) and waste water disposal (septic systems) which is why large lots (acre plus) are required - you need space for a septic tank and leach field, and a minimum distance between that and the well. All those "wasteful lawns" are probably over leach fields, where you do not want anything with deep roots (like trees and bushes). In terms of precipitation management rural areas are better, the rain and snow sink into the ground more, less runoff. Lots of gravel driveways instead of pavement. In urban areas runoff after storms can be a big issue, raw sewage in the Ottawa River is a regular story around Ottawa after big storms. And lucky everyone downriver.
From a municipality perspective it is financially better to have more than just farms. If farmers sell off acre or 2 acre lots on roads, they have not lost a lot of field area, but the municipality will have a stronger tax base, the utilities will have more customers per km of road, and there will be more people to keep the banks and the grocery stores and the local schools going.
You could argue more against cottage country, especially if it is only cottages. Second residences so not essential, all the roads and power lines needed. Especially all the plowing for winter cottages. Of course they are now essential for the economies of the local towns.
I am guessing outer suburbs with nothing but houses, no shopping, few local jobs, are probably the worst. They are totally car centric.
I am not going to even discuss subsidies, becasue that is not a balanced discussion when we look at all the other subsidies. And part of a government's job is to make the basics available to everyone and at this point electricity and internet and driveable roads (except in really remote locations) are essential. And for longer travel, please remember that a lot of rural areas used to have good train service to larger cities, and that is gone. Public transit is becoming more and more an urban perk, those in rural areas get left out.
Anyway, just my viewpoint from having lived in rural areas as a non-farmer for decades.
You're correct, it doesn't have a gigantic pile of data for you to peruse and it doesn't link to the 20-30 studies that it claims supported their conclusion.
Can you provide a similar study that supports the theory that rural living is better for the environment?
-
Reading Plina's post, the words James Bay came to mind. ;-)
If I Google the name a singer comes up so I think you need to elaborate a little bit. :-)
There is a singer named James Bay?
You were talking electricity generation - Jams Bay is the location of a major power dam run by Hydro-Quebec.
Lots of environmental and social effects, people weren't as careful in the 1970s as they are now. Plus long-distance power lines are vulnerable, when we had a huge ice storm in January 1998, Montreal lost 5 of the 6 power lines from James Bay. Temperatures went from near 0C (which is why it was ice, not snow) to highs of -20 and lows around -30 for the next few weeks. It was rough.
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/james-bay-project (https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/james-bay-project)
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/ice-storm-1998-1.4469977 (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/ice-storm-1998-1.4469977)
That makes more sense then the singer. I guess Google gives different results depending on your location.
We had the bigger dams constructed in the 50-60ies. The building of the large hydro came with a lot of environmental and social effects here also, that would not have been acceptable today. We also had some storms in the southern part of the country that led to people being without electricity for a long period. It resulted in tighter legislation with compensation that the electricity grid companies have to start to pay after 12 hours without electricity to their customers. The compensation can amount to 300 % of the yearly grid costs. That lead to big investments in the security of the grids.
-
https://www.livescience.com/13772-city-slicker-country-bumpkin-smaller-carbon-footprint.html
The IIED report, which was published in 2009, spawned 20 or 30 follow-up studies, all of which told a similarly positive story about urbanization. "[All of the] studies have shown that urbanization can have benefits in terms of lowering greenhouse gas emissions," Dodman told Life's Little Mysteries.
I'll take a look. I hope it looked at suburbs carefully.
Of course what I really want is Amsterdam transplanted to North America - I have been watching too much Not Just Bikes.
Update
I looked, it was old (2009), very general, and used New York as the city, and New York is well known to be very low carbon compared to a lot of cities. It also doesn't talk about all the activities happening else where that support the city.
But as I said, very general. No in depth analysis, no urban/inner suburbs/outer suburbs/rural comparison. No data.
So, just thoughts off the top of my head:
When we talk "rural", are we including all the small towns? Because the existence of small towns means people living in them are walking, cycling, short drive distance to everything. And they provide resources so that people living on country roads don't have to drive far to get to those resources. Remove the small towns and people in the country now have to drive longer distances. Believe me, I have seen this where I used to live - when a bank or a grocery store pulled out of a small town it had huge effects on people's resource base. But of course small towns need roads to link one to another and to larger population centres.
All those country roads that need plowing and power lines that need to be strung? In agricultural areas they would be there anyway, because the roads to the farms still need to be plowed, and the power still needs to go to the farms. Anyone who knows anyone with a dairy farm knows that power outages are disasters for them. The cows need their water (no water if no power for the well pump, no municipal water, remember) and they need to be milked. Same with keeping the roads clear, supplies need to get to the farms, and the milk trucks have to get to the farms. Same for any other livestock, minus the milking. If you want the feed for livestock to get to the farms you need roads, and how are the chickens and eggs and beef and hogs going to get to the abattoir and then to the butcher and grocery store without roads that can carry trucks? Not just cars, trucks. And big tractors. And combines. Do you realize how big a combine is? It is 2 lanes wide. I saw all of those on my quiet country road. Between farm methane for power generation and solar and small wind turbines I expect more farms will become self-sufficient for electricity, but they are not there now. And is it better for every rural house to be generating its own electricity? Truly rural houses are already handling their own water supply (wells) and waste water disposal (septic systems) which is why large lots (acre plus) are required - you need space for a septic tank and leach field, and a minimum distance between that and the well. All those "wasteful lawns" are probably over leach fields, where you do not want anything with deep roots (like trees and bushes). In terms of precipitation management rural areas are better, the rain and snow sink into the ground more, less runoff. Lots of gravel driveways instead of pavement. In urban areas runoff after storms can be a big issue, raw sewage in the Ottawa River is a regular story around Ottawa after big storms. And lucky everyone downriver.
From a municipality perspective it is financially better to have more than just farms. If farmers sell off acre or 2 acre lots on roads, they have not lost a lot of field area, but the municipality will have a stronger tax base, the utilities will have more customers per km of road, and there will be more people to keep the banks and the grocery stores and the local schools going.
You could argue more against cottage country, especially if it is only cottages. Second residences so not essential, all the roads and power lines needed. Especially all the plowing for winter cottages. Of course they are now essential for the economies of the local towns.
I am guessing outer suburbs with nothing but houses, no shopping, few local jobs, are probably the worst. They are totally car centric.
I am not going to even discuss subsidies, becasue that is not a balanced discussion when we look at all the other subsidies. And part of a government's job is to make the basics available to everyone and at this point electricity and internet and driveable roads (except in really remote locations) are essential. And for longer travel, please remember that a lot of rural areas used to have good train service to larger cities, and that is gone. Public transit is becoming more and more an urban perk, those in rural areas get left out.
Anyway, just my viewpoint from having lived in rural areas as a non-farmer for decades.
This Austrian study indicates (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652620313731 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652620313731)) that urbanization in wealthy developed countries appears to reduce carbon emissions. This has been replicated in the UK (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/035039 (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/035039)) and Finland (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800914001281 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800914001281)). But digging a little further, it gets less clear to me.
When you look at the raw numbers for developing countries for example, per capita energy consumption is invariably higher in cities. When you control for income though, you find that rich people living in rural areas use significantly more energy (about 25% more) than people living in urban areas https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac7c2a/pdf (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac7c2a/pdf), middle and low income are both higher energy consumers for urban areas than rural.
This study looks at how income inequality (between rural and urban Chinese cities) seems to increase environmental damage - https://www.hindawi.com/journals/complexity/2022/4604467/ (https://www.hindawi.com/journals/complexity/2022/4604467/)
This Finnish study (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/77b0/b02eab4ae0fc6b0dce9422e05ffb2c529305.pdf (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/77b0/b02eab4ae0fc6b0dce9422e05ffb2c529305.pdf)) also indicates that income has a more significant impact upon carbon emissions that rural/urban split.
I also found these articles (https://news.berkeley.edu/2014/01/06/suburban-sprawl-cancels-carbon-footprint-savings-of-dense-urban-cores/ (https://news.berkeley.edu/2014/01/06/suburban-sprawl-cancels-carbon-footprint-savings-of-dense-urban-cores/), https://theconversation.com/suburban-living-the-worst-for-carbon-emissions-new-research-149332 (https://theconversation.com/suburban-living-the-worst-for-carbon-emissions-new-research-149332)) which both seems to support your argument about suburbs being pretty bad.
So, my modified conclusion is . . . dense urban - best, rural second best, suburbs worst. Also income inequality is seriously hastening the end of the world, and rich people are the real problem - regardless of whether or not they live in urban/rural areas.
-
This Austrian study indicates (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652620313731 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652620313731)) that urbanization in wealthy developed countries appears to reduce carbon emissions. This has been replicated in the UK (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/035039 (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/035039)) and Finland (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800914001281 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800914001281)). But digging a little further, it gets less clear to me.
When you look at the raw numbers for developing countries for example, per capita energy consumption is invariably higher in cities. When you control for income though, you find that rich people living in rural areas use significantly more energy (about 25% more) than people living in urban areas https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac7c2a/pdf (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac7c2a/pdf), middle and low income are both higher energy consumers for urban areas than rural.
This study looks at how income inequality (between rural and urban Chinese cities) seems to increase environmental damage - https://www.hindawi.com/journals/complexity/2022/4604467/ (https://www.hindawi.com/journals/complexity/2022/4604467/)
This Finnish study (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/77b0/b02eab4ae0fc6b0dce9422e05ffb2c529305.pdf (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/77b0/b02eab4ae0fc6b0dce9422e05ffb2c529305.pdf)) also indicates that income has a more significant impact upon carbon emissions that rural/urban split.
I also found these articles (https://news.berkeley.edu/2014/01/06/suburban-sprawl-cancels-carbon-footprint-savings-of-dense-urban-cores/ (https://news.berkeley.edu/2014/01/06/suburban-sprawl-cancels-carbon-footprint-savings-of-dense-urban-cores/), https://theconversation.com/suburban-living-the-worst-for-carbon-emissions-new-research-149332 (https://theconversation.com/suburban-living-the-worst-for-carbon-emissions-new-research-149332)) which both seems to support your argument about suburbs being pretty bad.
So, my modified conclusion is . . . dense urban - best, rural second best, suburbs worst. Also income inequality is seriously hastening the end of the world, and rich people are the real problem - regardless of whether or not they live in urban/rural areas.
Thanks for doing more digging.
I think there are so many variables that this is going to be a topic for research for a good while to come.
I am not surprised that income is such a strong contributing variable. People with more money can buy more, whether it be things or experiences, and they are all going to have a carbon footprint. But I hope the studies look at total effects, because with a global economy anything I buy that was made elsewhere means that pollution and carbon use was done elsewhere. Does it show up on my account?
So much depends on society priories too. In Ottawa the city government is doing a lot to green the city, in terms of things like public transit and less polluting city vehicles and green waste and so on. These are things that need governments - no matter how "green" someone wants their transport to be, if there are no safe bike routes to work and no good public transit to work they are going to be driving. My apartment building had no provisions for green waste - here there is a garbage chute on each floor that can switch between garbage and recycling and green waste, so for the first time since I left the house I am not putting compostible waste in the garbage. At the house I had a compost pile.
And government regulations - it costs money for industry to be less polluting. They will be less polluting if there are incentives. The pulp and paper industry, for example, is way less polluting than it was 40 years. ago. Cement plants elsewhere put less pollution (especially particulates) into the air than cement plants in Ontario do, because Ontario regulations are not as stringent. Those are not things that individual can do a lot about as part of their daily lives.
-
PTF
Still driving ICE, but DW and I are considering going EV.
One thing I have been wondering is how EV's are affected by cold weather in Canada. I found this which provided some insight.
https://www.evgo.com/blog/chilly-charging-5-cold-weather-tips-for-evs/ (https://www.evgo.com/blog/chilly-charging-5-cold-weather-tips-for-evs/)
As time goes on there are more options for consumers the future looks bright for EV's.
-
PTF
Still driving ICE, but DW and I are considering going EV.
One thing I have been wondering is how EV's are affected by cold weather in Canada. I found this which provided some insight.
https://www.evgo.com/blog/chilly-charging-5-cold-weather-tips-for-evs/ (https://www.evgo.com/blog/chilly-charging-5-cold-weather-tips-for-evs/)
As time goes on there are more options for consumers the future looks bright for EV's.
Not in Canada anymore, but still in a cold weather locale where winter temps are frequently < -20°C.
Two points:
1) I lose about 40% of my range on the colder winter days, with the vehicle stored outside. The charging portion adds roughly 15-20 minutes as the car “conditions” the battery (warns it up) before it starts charging (at least that’s my understanding)
2) where you store your vehicle matters greatly, as does the length of your trips. If your EV will be in a heated garage and driven for 15-20 minute trips the loss of range will be fairly negligible even on very cold days as the battery pack temp will remain fairly warm.
2b) instant-on heat is awesome in the winter, but used extensively it saps energy. I normally turn the heat on for 2-3 minutes. (It’s hit by the time I leave my driveway). Once the cabin isn’t -20° I rely mostly on the heated seats, which don’t take nearly as much energy and feel better to me than hot air blowing in my face. Ymmv.
-
PTF
Still driving ICE, but DW and I are considering going EV.
One thing I have been wondering is how EV's are affected by cold weather in Canada. I found this which provided some insight.
https://www.evgo.com/blog/chilly-charging-5-cold-weather-tips-for-evs/ (https://www.evgo.com/blog/chilly-charging-5-cold-weather-tips-for-evs/)
As time goes on there are more options for consumers the future looks bright for EV's.
Not in Canada anymore, but still in a cold weather locale where winter temps are frequently < -20°C.
Two points:
1) I lose about 40% of my range on the colder winter days, with the vehicle stored outside. The charging portion adds roughly 15-20 minutes as the car “conditions” the battery (warns it up) before it starts charging (at least that’s my understanding)
2) where you store your vehicle matters greatly, as does the length of your trips. If your EV will be in a heated garage and driven for 15-20 minute trips the loss of range will be fairly negligible even on very cold days as the battery pack temp will remain fairly warm.
2b) instant-on heat is awesome in the winter, but used extensively it saps energy. I normally turn the heat on for 2-3 minutes. (It’s hit by the time I leave my driveway). Once the cabin isn’t -20° I rely mostly on the heated seats, which don’t take nearly as much energy and feel better to me than hot air blowing in my face. Ymmv.
Thanks for the insight.
Sounds like garage parking is a big plus for cold weather driving.
A typical January work day would have only a short drive to work but then sit in a open parking lot for 8+ hours. Even with an ICE car you have to give the car 5 mins to heat up before being able to drive. Enough time to clear off the snow ;).
I assume the battery heater would be on most of the time in the winter for EVs. I also assume EV battery's are much more monitored having temperature sensors and heaters to prevent batteries exploding when being charged when frozen. I have first hand knowledge from co-workers having cellphone and laptop batteries fail dramatically after being outside in a Canadian winter. Now everyone at the office knows not to make the mistake of plugging a frozen device to charge right away without giving it time to climatize to room temperature.
-
EVs seem to be very good at thermal management now (having learned from the First gen Leafs a while back). That’s why it takes an additional 15-20 minutes to charge in the winter … basically the car is using electricity from the plug to first warm the battery pack to avoid damaging it.
Does your work offer plugs for block heaters? If so there’s your L1 charging right there. My car has a “conditioning” setting too which will heat the cabin and warm the battery from the grid before I get in rather than draw from the pack. It’s proved useful to me, though I realize a pre-warmed cabin is a luxury item.
-
Does your work offer plugs for block heaters? If so there’s your L1 charging right there. My car has a “conditioning” setting too which will heat the cabin and warm the battery from the grid before I get in rather than draw from the pack. It’s proved useful to me, though I realize a pre-warmed cabin is a luxury item.
I wish. No free power in any of the parking lots near work. I have noticed the charging stations around town are busier than before. It used to be a rare to see them being used, now there is always at least one car charging. More charging infrastructure is being built each year. I am seeing more EV's around, just a couple of doors down a neighbor got a Ford Mustang Mach-E (looks more like an SUV than the Mustang sports car). They only have L1 charging at their house as cost to install a better charger would require a major electrical upgrade currently the cost and availability has them pushing that decision down the road. Things like that have me thinking about the true costs of switching to an EV. The cost of an EV plus a home charger would pay for a lot of gas. The break even point is not that easy to calculate. Having a better charging option at your house is not mandatory. My neighbors seem to be fine without one. I am hoping once supply chains are back to normal and inflation is under control the prices and availability will improve.
-
Does your work offer plugs for block heaters? If so there’s your L1 charging right there. My car has a “conditioning” setting too which will heat the cabin and warm the battery from the grid before I get in rather than draw from the pack. It’s proved useful to me, though I realize a pre-warmed cabin is a luxury item.
I wish. No free power in any of the parking lots near work. I have noticed the charging stations around town are busier than before. It used to be a rare to see them being used, now there is always at least one car charging. More charging infrastructure is being built each year. I am seeing more EV's around, just a couple of doors down a neighbor got a Ford Mustang Mach-E (looks more like an SUV than the Mustang sports car). They only have L1 charging at their house as cost to install a better charger would require a major electrical upgrade currently the cost and availability has them pushing that decision down the road. Things like that have me thinking about the true costs of switching to an EV. The cost of an EV plus a home charger would pay for a lot of gas. The break even point is not that easy to calculate. Having a better charging option at your house is not mandatory. My neighbors seem to be fine without one. I am hoping once supply chains are back to normal and inflation is under control the prices and availability will improve.
A few things…
L2 chargers get expensive when you want (or get “sold”) a fancy smart charger with an integrated app and other such features. At a minimum what you need is a plug and the receptacle in which to plug it into. You can buy a “dumb” 16A/240V plug for around $200USD… essentially some heavy gauge wire, a fault detector and the two plug ends. For the receptacle it’s nothing more than the same circuit a hot water heater or other appliance uses. You can even plug into a standard clothes dryer receptacle if one is near your parking space.
If there’s a long, complex run to your panel or if you need to upgrade your service it can get pricey quick. But you also don’t need a 50 amp circuit. A simple 20 Amp circuit (3.8kw) will let you replenish 120+ miles of driving overnight. For most homes that won’t strain a 100 amp service.
Finally, the real cost savings from owning an EV comes from reduced maintenance. Fuel savings are typically “just” a few hundred dollars per year saved once increased electricity costs are factored in.
-
The cost of an EV plus a home charger would pay for a lot of gas.
Pure EVs are great but PHEVs are also a very good mid-way point. For long trips or cold weather they can burn some fuel, if needed. Ours has about 60 km EV range in the summer and 45 km in the (mild) coastal winter. But, it doesn't get below -10C here. Level 1 (110v) charging always gets us full overnight. The Level 1 doesn't quite keep up with heating the car in the winter when plugged in, but we usually still leave the house with 95% charge.
Cheaper vehicle, more versatile (for now). I look forward to getting a full EV some day but we are mostly electric already.
-
We bought a full EV a year ago (2020 Kia Niro). Here in BC we made full use of the subsidies for the purchase - $5k from the feds, $3k from the province and $6k for scrapping our decrepit old car (Vlad the Impala). That took $14k off the total cost.
We could have paid cash, but they offered us 0% interest (!?!), so (not being dumb) I took it and stretched it out over 7 years. In real terms the payments I make 6 years from now are worth less than today. Invest the difference for a real optimization strategy I guess. Recent inflation spikes have also validated that choice.
In the last couple of years BC has placed Level 3 rapid chargers almost everywhere along the highways. On our trip last summer it seemed like every one horse town had a couple of fast chargers. That allowed us to drive for a few hours until we felt like a break, plug into a charger and eat lunch, then carry on with our trip. I can say that we would have taken that kind of break after 3 hours of driving anyways.
The West coast is not the same as the prairies (I grew up in Alberta), but I am 100% all in on EVs at this point. They are just better.
-
I was talking to a firefighter buddy of mine. He was talking about the rise in EV's and how the fire department and towing companies in our city still don't have a good set of procedures in place for dealing with EV's when they are in accidents or catch fire. The many different models with different battery locations can make it a challenge to deal with. Even once a battery fire is put out it can reignite on it's own for up to five days. Some towing yards are using dunk tanks to submerge the car for to fully remove the risk of reignition. This is not a bash on EV's there are lots of dangers in gasoline fires too. As new cars and technology are released there are always ripple effects. Another example from my fire fighter buddy is air bags. On older cars you could just cut out the person trapped in the car with the jaws of life in a few seconds. Now they have to take much more time and care to make sure they are not going to cut into an air bag throwing shrapnel.
-
As new cars and technology are released there are always ripple effects.
This is a good point. We are in a time of rapid change and there are definitely going to be wrinkles and setbacks. Although some media sites use any negative story and an attempt to discredit EVs, ripple effects should be an expected part of this growth cycle.