Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Automotive

Trudeau’s electric vehicle mandate could cause Canada’s power grid to collapse, analysis shows

Published

1 year ago

6 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Not only would the need to generate more electric power skyrocket, but prices and taxes would soar for consumers, a Fraser Institute study found.

A noted fiscally conservative think tank warned that a proposed federal mandate from the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to ban the sale of new gasoline/diesel-only powered cars after 2035 and allow electric-only sales is an unrealistic fantasy that would cause massive chaos by threatening to collapse the nation’s power grids.

“Requiring all new vehicle sales in Canada to be electric in just 11 years means the provinces need to substantially increase their power generation capabilities, and adding the equivalent of 10 new mega-dams or 13 new gas plants in such a short timeline isn’t realistic or feasible,” said G. Cornelis van Kooten, a Fraser Institute senior fellow and author of “Failure to Charge: A Critical Look at Canada’s EV Policy.”

“Canadians need to know just how much additional electricity is going to be required in order to meet Ottawa’s electric vehicle mandate, because its impact on the provinces — and taxpayers and rate payers — will be significant.”

Van Kooten’s in-depth analysis of the impending electric vehicle (EV) mandate was released March 14 and estimates that to meet the 2035 target national electric generation would need to go up some 15.3% in only 11 years, which is a monumental task.

This would mean building no less than 10 new mega hydro dams nationwide, or at least 13 new large natural gas plants, according to Van Kooten. For those pushing so-called “green” power, that would mean some 5,000 new wind turbines, which all must still be backed up by natural gas peaker plants because of their unreliability when the wind is not blowing.

Given the length of time it takes to build a natural gas plant due to red tape, costs, and other factors, van Kooten observed that “the major obstacle relates to the likelihood of constructing sufficient power generating capacity to meet the anticipated demand EVs would impose on electricity grids.”

“The real-world situation is not as easy as merely replacing current ICE vehicles with EVs, and there are many obstacles to be overcome on the path of electrifying the personal vehicle fleets within Canada,” he said.

“The type of electricity that goes into the grid would also be a big consideration when switching over to EVs, as jurisdictions will need to increase their electricity production capabilities with green sources that meet the additional hourly load requirements and can be employed quickly to balance intermittent renewable energy sources.”

Van Kooten’s study looks at how much extra electricity will be required in all of Canada’s biggest provinces, Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec to meet the 2035 EV mandate.

Trudeau plans to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars after 2035. The EU (European Union) also has an EV mandate in place for the same year.

Canadian Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault announced just before Christmas the “Electric Vehicle Availability Standard.” This is a plan that will mandate that all new cars and trucks by 2035 be electric, which would in effect ban the sale of new gasoline- or diesel-only powered vehicles after that year.

The reality is that electric cars cost thousands more to make and buy, are not suited to Canada’s cold climate, offer poor range and long charging times (especially in cold weather), and have batteries that take tremendous resources to make and are hard to recycle.

Just over a week ago, LifeSiteNews reported that a 2022 study found that electric vehicles pollute at a rate far higher than their gasoline or diesel-powered counterparts.

Not all Canadian provinces are on board Trudeau’s EV dictate

In January, LifeSiteNews reported that Alberta’s Minister of Energy criticized the federally funded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) for publishing a report stating that electric cars are better able to handle cold weather than gas-powered ones, all at the same time an extreme cold snap gripped much of western Canada and nearly caused Alberta’s power grid to collapse due to its increased reliance on so-called renewable energy.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has promised that she intends to fight with “everything” at her disposal what she called an “unconstitutional” new federal government EV mandate as well as a net-zero power generation, which if implemented would lead to guaranteed power outages.

She noted that when it comes to Trudeau’s EV mandate, “Ottawa is trying to force increased demands on the electricity grid while simultaneously weakening Alberta’s and other provinces’ grids through their federal electricity regulations.”

Trudeau’s EV mandates have also been called out by the automotive industry in Canada. The Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association said in response to the new EV mandate that forcing people to buy EVs will “disproportionately impact households living in rural and northern communities that may have lower access to public charging infrastructure.”

 

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Alberta / 1 min ago

Energy sector will fuel Alberta economy and Canada’s exports for many years to come

Break The Needle / 1 hour ago

Why psychedelic therapy is stuck in the waiting room

Automotive / 1 hour ago

Trump Must Act to Halt the Tesla Terror Campaign

Automotive

Trump Must Act to Halt the Tesla Terror Campaign

Published on April 2, 2025

By

Christopher F. Rufo

The Left’s splintering violence threatens a veto over democratic power.

Elon Musk finds himself at the fulcrum of American life. His companies are leading the field across the automotive, space, robotics, and AI industries. His ownership of the social platform X gives him significant influence over political discourse. And his DOGE initiative represents the single greatest threat to the permanent administrative state. Musk is arguably the most powerful man in the United States, including President Trump.

The Left has taken notice. Left-wing activists have long practiced a tactic called “power mapping,” which entails diagramming the opposing political movement and identifying “chokepoints.” They have designated Musk as one such chokepoint. This month, activists claimed to have organized 500 protests against Elon Musk’s Tesla—dubbed the “Tesla Takedown”—with demonstrations outside sales lots and a series of incidents of vandalism, property destruction, and fire bombings. A pattern has also emerged of individuals scratching or spray-painting parked Teslas, looking to intimidate owners and potential owners or just to express hatred of Musk.

Precedents exist for this kind of escalation. In the 1970s, following the frustrations of the civil rights era, left-wing splinter groups launched targeted terror campaigns and symbolic acts of violence. They bombed the U.S. Capitol, assassinated police officers, and even self-immolated in imitation of Buddhist monks. We may be entering a similar phase today, as the collapse of the Black Lives Matter movement gives rise to radicalized left-wing factions willing to embrace violence. If so, Musk’s Tesla may be the Number One target.

What, exactly, motivates this campaign? At its core, the Left appears to be shifting from an “antiracist” narrative to an anti-wealth one—from a racial frame to an economic one. The sentiment driving the Tesla Takedown is rooted in economic resentment and a desire for leveling. Musk has become a symbol of everything progressives oppose: oligarchy, capitalism, wealth, and innovation. These, in their view, are marks of the oppressor. They scorn the futuristic Cybertruck, SpaceX rockets, and Optimus robots, believing that such creations should be dismantled and repurposed into chassis for public buses or I-beams for public housing.

A certain element of left-wing Luddism is at work here, but the greater part of these activists’ motives is resentment. Musk represents the triumph of the great man of industry, something the Left believes should not exist.

Unfortunately, the Tesla Takedown may succeed. The Left has likely identified Tesla as a chokepoint because it’s easier to dissuade consumers from buying a car they associate with a malevolent political cause—or fear might be vandalized—than it is to persuade them to buy one in support of Musk and DOGE. When it comes to purchasing a Tesla, fear among the average American is a more powerful motivator than enthusiasm among the MAGA base.

Some evidence suggests that the campaign has made an economic impact. Tesla stock peaked around the time of President Trump’s inauguration and since then has lost approximately 40 percent of its value. Musk has accumulated more power than any other American, but that means that he has more points of vulnerability. His wealth and power are tied to his companies—most importantly, his consumer car company, which depends on individual purchases rather than institutional contracts (like SpaceX).

Trump has signaled that he understands this dilemma. He appeared at the White House in a Tesla and has voiced support for Musk’s firms. Justice Department prosecutors—and their allies in state government—must translate this support into policy by identifying and punishing those who destroy property as a means of political intimidation.

The administration needs to make clear that radical left-wing factions cannot use violence to wield a veto over democratic governance. If the partnership between Trump and Musk is to produce meaningful results, it must be backed by the full protection of the law.

Continue Reading

Automotive

Electric cars just another poor climate policy

Published on April 1, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Bjørn Lomborg

The electric car is widely seen as a symbol of a simple, clean solution to climate change. In reality, it’s inefficient, reliant on massive subsidies, and leaves behind a trail of pollution and death that is seldom acknowledged.

We are constantly reminded by climate activists and politicians that electric cars are cleaner, cheaper, and better. Canada and many other countries have promised to prohibit the sale of new gas and diesel cars within a decade. But if electric cars are really so good, why would we need to ban the alternatives?

And why has Canada needed to subsidize each electric car with a minimum $5,000 from the federal government and more from provincial governments to get them bought? Many people are not sold on the idea of an electric car because they worry about having to plan out where and when to recharge. They don’t want to wait for an uncomfortable amount of time while recharging; they don’t want to pay significantly more for the electric car and then see its used-car value decline much faster. For people not privileged to own their own house, recharging is a real challenge. Surveys show that only 15 per cent of Canadians and 11 per cent of Americans want to buy an electric car.

The main environmental selling point of an electric car is that it doesn’t pollute. It is true that its engine doesn’t produce any CO₂ while driving, but it still emits carbon in other ways. Manufacturing the car generates emissions—especially producing the battery which requires a large amount of energy, mostly achieved with coal in China. So even when an electric car is being recharged with clean power in BC, over its lifetime it will emit about one-third of an equivalent gasoline car. When recharged in Alberta, it will emit almost three-quarters.

In some parts of the world, like India, so much of the power comes from coal that electric cars end up emitting more CO₂ than gasoline cars. Across the world, on average, the International Energy Agency estimates that an electric car using the global average mix of power sources over its lifetime will emit nearly half as much CO₂ as a gasoline-driven car, saving about 22 tonnes of CO₂.

But using an electric car to cut emissions is incredibly ineffective. On America’s longest-established carbon trading system, you could buy 22 tonnes of carbon emission cuts for about $660 (US$460). Yet, Ottawa is subsidizing every electric car to the tune of $5,000 or nearly ten times as much, which increases even more if provincial subsidies are included. And since about half of those electrical vehicles would have been bought anyway, it is likely that Canada has spent nearly twenty-times too much cutting CO₂ with electric cars than it could have. To put it differently, Canada could have cut twenty-times more CO₂ for the same amount of money.

Moreover, all these estimates assume that electric cars are driven as far as gasoline cars. They are not. In the US, nine-in-ten households with an electric car actually have one, two or more non-electric cars, with most including an SUV, truck or minivan. Moreover, the electric car is usually driven less than half as much as the other vehicles, which means the CO₂ emission reduction is much smaller. Subsidized electric cars are typically a ‘second’ car for rich people to show off their environmental credentials.

Electric cars are also 320–440 kilograms heavier than equivalent gasoline cars because of their enormous batteries. This means they will wear down roads faster, and cost societies more. They will also cause more air pollution by shredding more particulates from tire and road wear along with their brakes. Now, gasoline cars also pollute through combustion, but electric cars in total pollute more, both from tire and road wear and from forcing more power stations online, often the most polluting ones. The latest meta-study shows that overall electric cars are worse on particulate air pollution. Another study found that in two-thirds of US states, electric cars cause more of the most dangerous particulate air pollution than gasoline-powered cars.

These heavy electric cars are also more dangerous when involved in accidents, because heavy cars more often kill the other party. A study in Nature shows that in total, heavier electric cars will cause so many more deaths that the toll could outweigh the total climate benefits from reduced CO₂ emissions.

Many pundits suggest electric car sales will dominate gasoline cars within a few decades, but the reality is starkly different. A 2023-estimate from the Biden Administration shows that even in 2050, more than two-thirds of all cars globally will still be powered by gas or diesel.

Source: US Energy Information Administration, reference scenario, October 2023
Fossil fuel cars, vast majority is gasoline, also some diesel, all light duty vehicles, the remaining % is mostly LPG.

Electric vehicles will only take over when innovation has made them better and cheaper for real. For now, electric cars run not mostly on electricity but on bad policy and subsidies, costing hundreds of billions of dollars, blocking consumers from choosing the cars they want, and achieving virtually nothing for climate change.

Bjørn Lomborg

Continue Reading

Trending

X