Natural Resources Canada Releases Series Of Plug-In Vehicle Primer Videos


Reduce the costs

Reduce the costs

Natural Resources Canada recently covered some basics of electric and plug-in hybrid cars, which may be useful to a new EV enthusiasts.

Here are two twin videos discussing both solutions on the general level.

According to Natural Resources Canada, energy costs for all-electric cars in Canada could be just fifth of fuel costs for conventional vehicles, based on 12,500 miles or 20,000 kilometres a year.

Battery-electric Vehicles

“Battery-electric vehicles are relatively new to the roads of Canada. These vehicles are propelled by an electric motor that draws electricity from on-board rechargeable batteries. When the batteries run low, they must be plugged-in to recharge. Electric vehicles produce no tailpipe emissions.”

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

“Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) are hybrids with high-capacity batteries that can be charged by plugging them in. Although PHEVs do not have to be plugged in to be driven, they will not achieve optimal fuel consumption or maximum driving range without charging.”

Category: General


21 responses to "Natural Resources Canada Releases Series Of Plug-In Vehicle Primer Videos"
  1. offib says:

    On the video about pure EVs, the range of “about 100km” is too low to consider it as an average, let alone misleading. Unless it’s only refferring to expectable range during winter weather.

    1. lewl says:

      It’s rather funny, as they’re notoriously bad for being very optimistic on our ratings for ICEs.

      I’m glad they’re actually providing a realistic number for EVs. Their gas figures are useless, this sounds like their EV ratings might actually mean something.

      1. lewl says:

        I just checked their site, and it look like they’re updating gas testing as well.

        Might actually get some meaningful numbers now!

        Looks like they’re turning over a new leaf (pun not intended) with new testing for gas an electric vehicles.

      2. Surya says:

        100km is not realistic, getting 150km from a Leaf shouldn’t be a problem for anyone.

        1. lewl says:

          According to the fleet karma data, a leaf gets 80-120 km.
          100 sounds good to me.

          I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, advertising the max is useless and terribly misleading to consumers. Especially here, where your winter range really takes a hit.

          It’s simply irresponsible to say 150 knowing full well you may only ever get that one month of the year. And another month half that.

          1. Surya says:

            I drive a ZOE, which is very similar. Here’s my predicted ranges of the last month after charging (and they are realistic)
            154, 135, 131, 139, 140, 140, 148, 146, 157, 154, 145, 156, 145, 156, 145, 162, 150, 159, 148, 172, 159, 159, 154, 148, 156, 161, 157, 154
            The dip towards 130 and 140 was due to a reset of the telematics, which tends to result in a very pessimistic range prediction. As soon as I got enough km on the odometer (about 200) the range went up towards 150, as you can see.
            Now these numbers are for the last month of course, but I’ve had these numbers since I got the car in May.
            Is that so different from a Leaf?

    2. Stephane says:

      I think its important to have realistic expections while driving in a variety of conditions. People still have a hard time understanding that doing 100km at 100km/h will take more energy then doing it at 50km/h…

      And I’m not even factoring in the heating required for winter, which can drain the range to less then 70km on the early LEAFs.

      IMHO, its always better to set a lower expectation that is usually deliverable then to set the bar too high and constantly miss it, or have way too many caveats to reach it.

    3. Ian says:

      It’s too high if you account for 5 months of winter and snow tires.

  2. Anon says:

    Still useful for anti-EV trolls like “EVDeath”…

    Facts trump personal opinion & outright misinformation.

  3. lewl says:

    Bravo NRCAN, extremely well done.

  4. Bill Howland says:

    Overall, quite well done. Leaving the GreenHouseGas issue aside for the moment, one point the first video talked about is somewhat misleading and its been a talking point on these blogs so I’ll address it here.

    The 1st video makes the comment that an internal combustion engine, or ICE is less efficient than an electric motor, let’s say optimistically 20% for the engine and 80% for the battery/motor combo.

    This is a false comparison, since the ICE is a Prime Mover. Like it or not, a Prime Mover is required for the BEV at some point but it is never discussed since it is an inconvenient truth.

    A supposedly zero GHG Nuclear Plant may have an efficiency of 30%, (and that is extremely optimistic when all costs are really factored in). Adding transmission losses, distribution losses, and battery charge/discharge inefficiency, and the ICE doesn’t seem to look all that bad after all.

    In the case of my house personally, the “Prime Mover” is my solar array, making electricity at an overall efficiency of around 13% when inverter losses are totally factored in. Adding battery charge/discharge inefficiencies and my overall efficiency is much less than 10%, so ICE officianados can very rightly claim they are DOUBLE the efficiency I am.(Or, at least their rationale is as good as what passes for contemporary thought here).

    So, I admit my solar system may be half the efficiency of an ICE powered car. So be it, I still like running the car on low-cost Sunshine.

    1. muchski says:

      Bill, what about all the energy costs in exploring, extracting, refining, and moving fossil fuels over great distances to millions of locations?

      I think the fairest comparison of each tech is once charged or gases up how efficient is each in putting the potential chemical energy into motion, and an EV clearly comes out ahead being 3x more efficient!

      1. Bill Howland says:

        Yeah, that’s part of the equation, and certainly, the old way of obtaining natural gas from an oil well is the most efficient, besides transporting natural gas through a pipe is really cheap.

        But Horizontal Hydrofracking (which El Presidente is super in favor of) should be banned in most locations due to the contamination of ground water and air that it invariably causes. There’s also an $18 a barrel premium at a minimum for this exploration, but even if it was free I’d still ban it since it ruins so many communities, and if you happen to be a home owner who disagrees with your neighbors, you’re SOL as they say, since your neighbors will sell your out, effectively. Thats why Benjamin Franklin hated democracy, saying Democracy is “2 wolfs and a sheep voting whats for luncheon”.

        Solar power has now become inexpensive enough that there is now really no reason for any more Nuclear Power Plants. Fukushima (the world’s worst industrial accident by an order of magnitude) is an ongoing catastrophe and will continue to get worse, as those residing near the West Coast from Alaska,and British Columbia, through the west coast states, and on to the western states and western Mexico. Fish death is astronomical and I don’t use those words lightly. Gamma ray detection during Julio around Hawaii should give serious watchers pause, as well as the extremely rare lightning storms in southern california recently.

        Scientists who previously have been ‘profiles in Courage’ have recently been tip toeing back into talking about the massive increase in Radiation (I congratulate them for finally finding their backbone). The watchword for the rest of my life will be “Bioaccumulation”.

        1. Bill Howland says:

          Appologies for talking about Shale Oil and Natural Gas in the same paragraph as someone is sure to say technically they’re different. But to me, they marr the landscape equally so it all part of the same disagreable bag.

    2. eMileage says:

      It seems reasonable to compare:
      a) fuel-burning engine to
      b) electric motor
      since both convert stored energy into motion.

      It may also be, to some extent, reasonable to compare:
      c) oil well to wheels, for an ICE with
      d) powerplant to wheels, for an EV

      Some may even consider comparing:
      e) sunlight -> photosynthesis -> dinosaurs -> oil -> pipeline -> refinery -> gas station -> wheels — along with all of the intermediate steps, including a fair bit of electricity consumption in the production of gasoline — to
      f) sunlight -> solar panels -> inverter -> charger -> battery -> inverter -> wheels for an EV.

      Comparisons between different types of vehicles with different energy sources can be very complex and therefore difficult to do fairly.

      However, it does not seem reasonable to compare a) with f) or other variations. Any reasonable comparison should yield the same result that has been shown in many studies. Electric propulsion is simply more efficient.

    3. Djoni says:

      Disagred totaly.
      Has emileage explain it well, I won’t add much to your over simplistic and very wrong explanation.
      But somme studies have point the amout of electricity need to produce gazoline to be enough to propel your EV to more or less half the distance you’ll go with the fossil fuel being produced.
      And how do you figure the spill of oil and the disastrous consequence?
      I never heard of electricity being spill all over the land,sea or else, have you?
      Here we go again.

  5. muchski says:

    Would be nice if the Federal govt brought in a Federal Incentive as well!

    1. BravelilToaster says:

      The only thing this government is interested in paying for is lip service.

      Usually to their buddies in big business.

  6. Curtis Ling says:

    the ev video makes it seem slow my local buses goes faster

  7. Curtis Ling says:

    i wonder why they went with licensed vehicles IN THE ANIMATION
    i mean its clearly a swift and at one moment a GTR (ELECTRIC) and a van (unknown make)