Why are Ontario's HOV lane rules different? | Page 3 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Why are Ontario's HOV lane rules different?

turbodish said:
As of end of 2010, less than 25% of Ontario's power was being generated from fossil-based coal, oil or natural gas fuels, and that segment will continue to shrink as the province shifts away from coal and oil-fire plants. The rest of Ontario's generating capacity came from non-polluting nuclear and hydroelectric water power plants, augmented by growing capacity in non-polluting wind and solar generation.

Even with regards to Ontario's current (but shrinking) fossil-fueled generating capacity, pollution controls can be much more efficiently and effectively implemented on a small number of large-scale relatively constant-output generating plants than they can on thousands of small-scale point-of-use internal combustion engines, such as those used in vehicles.
Click to expand...

Agree with above. Can you tell me about losses during transmission? From a energy conservation standpoint it is more efficient to produce the energy at the point of use than deal with the transmission losses.

When we start moving towards more renewables sources I won't have a leg to stand on then. But we aren't there yet.

Edit - didn't the ontario government just pull out of some serious wind farm commitments?
 
Last edited:
Englishj said:
There are no full electric cars in our market place to the best of my knowledge, the only car available right now is the Chevy Volt which was released in the USA a couple of months ago.

It's kinda false advertising for the current hybrid cars(prius/camry/escape) they are not fuel and emission free.
Click to expand...

Current hybrids are offer fuel savings over non-hybrids in typical commuter driving conditions. Their are subject to the same emissions standards as regular vehicles, so with less fuel use comes fewer tailpipe emissions.

There are different types of hybrids. A plug-in hybrid will usually run on battery power alone and won't even start the engine until the batteries are depleted. That means zero fuel use and zero tailpipe emissions while running the first 40 to 80 km or more on the batteries. For many GTA commuters, this is plenty of range to get to work and back without ever having to start the engine.

The Toyota Prius plug-in hybrid will be available later this year, but even now there are older Prius hybrids running around the GTA with owner-installed after-market plug-in kits installed. The Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid will be available here in July. The full-electric Nissan leaf will be here by fall. These will be effectively fuel and emission free for many typical commuter trips.

Even the older-style non-plug-in hybrids save in fuel and by extension, emissions. Battery-powered electric-motor assist during acceleration means that you can get decent performance from much smaller internal combustion engines, and that translates to less fuel use and improved emissions for a given performance level in a given vehicle.




 
NP6000 said:
Agree with above. Can you tell me about losses during transmission? From a energy conservation standpoint it is more efficient to produce the energy at the point of use than deal with the transmission losses.

When we start moving towards more renewables sources I won't have a leg to stand on then. But we aren't there yet.

Edit - didn't the ontario government just pull out of some serious wind farm commitments?
Click to expand...

The government has put a moratorium on OFF-SHORE wind power projects until more environmental data is in from other locales that have them in place. Large-scale land-based wind-power is not affected other than some additional conditions pertaining to separation from houses.

There are transmission losses over distance from our relatively few big generating facilities, but that is analogous to the transportation costs of ferrying gasoline around the province from our few big refining facilities.

Unlike refineries though, new solar and wind power generation facilities can be placed in more locations and much closer to points of use. I'm considering one myself on the roof of my garage under the MicroFITT program.
 
Really! How many hybrids can run at 100+kmph on battery power alone?

turbodish said:
A vehicle with sufficient battery range can do typical GTA highway commuting distances fuel-free and without tailpipe emissions. Given that reduced emissions is one of the goals for HOV lanes, that full-electric or plug-in hybrid travel range capability fits in with the stated HOV goals.
Click to expand...
 
forexman said:
Really! How many hybrids can run at 100+kmph on battery power alone?
Click to expand...

Largely immaterial, as I can rarely do above 80 Kmh during my commute home, on the Gardiner, 427, 401, and 410. In fact it takes me roughly 75 minutes to travel somewhat less than 50 Km. Odds are it's much the same for most people, who don't use the 407.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
It still produces significantly less emissions than the average motorcycle, even one with a cat, and the use of electricity is source independent. You can operate it electricity from nuclear, solar, wind, and water source just as easily as coal or gas source. If you want to move towards zero emissions, then electric or hybrid is the way to go.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree Rob. To illustrate my point, power plant emissions data from an EU study:

(Hard) Coal fired plant emissions: 0.78 g/hp-hr NOx & 3.21 g/hp-hr PM
MY2010 Heavy Duty Diesel Engine: 0.2g/hp-hr NOx & 0.2 g/hp-hr PM

Current gasoline engines are considerably cleaner than diesel - so you emissions per unit energy output would be even less for a gasoline engine.

Does anyone see why I am making such a big deal about where the energy for the plug-in hybrid comes from?

It gets better as you move towards cleaner forms of coal and gas fired plants, but they are on the same order for magnitude for a conventional IC.
 
Last edited:
NP6000 said:
I worked it out earlier - for 2010 it is 18X more for NOx... I didn't get around to HC.
Click to expand...

This assumes that the motorcycle emits the full allotment of CO, HC, NOx etc that the regulatory limit allows.

North American emission standards for motorcycles are extremely out of date. Since most motorcycles are built for worldwide sale, a good many of them (not all) are built to meet the most stringent standard (Euro 3) and then they are all made the same. This will result in them emitting far lower CO, HC, NOx than the North American regulatory limits.

For example ... both the Honda CBR125R and CBR250R are built the same for worldwide sale, and meet Euro 3 (actually, most likely they are built to pass Euro 4, which is expected to come into effect within the production lifetime of these models). Both engines have closed-loop EFI with 3-way catalyst.

Not all manufacturers do this ... *cough* Kawasaki ...

It does not help that a good many owners do things that circumvent the emission controls, but this is not the fault of the vehicle manufacturers.
 
turbodish said:

Current hybrids are offer fuel savings over non-hybrids in typical commuter driving conditions. Their are subject to the same emissions standards as regular vehicles, so with less fuel use comes fewer tailpipe emissions.

There are different types of hybrids. A plug-in hybrid will usually run on battery power alone and won't even start the engine until the batteries are depleted. That means zero fuel use and zero tailpipe emissions while running the first 40 to 80 km or more on the batteries. For many GTA commuters, this is plenty of range to get to work and back without ever having to start the engine.

The Toyota Prius plug-in hybrid will be available later this year, but even now there are older Prius hybrids running around the GTA with owner-installed after-market plug-in kits installed. The Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid will be available here in July. The full-electric Nissan leaf will be here by fall. These will be effectively fuel and emission free for many typical commuter trips.

Even the older-style non-plug-in hybrids save in fuel and by extension, emissions. Battery-powered electric-motor assist during acceleration means that you can get decent performance from much smaller internal combustion engines, and that translates to less fuel use and improved emissions for a given performance level in a given vehicle.
Click to expand...

I just spent the last week driving a Hybrid camry, 1,000 miles/1600kms averaging 34 mpg.

Don't buy into the hype of these cars, they still burn fuel and pollute. If i was worried about fuel economy i would go the diesel route.

The volt will be interesting to watch, esp in winter time.
 
Englishj said:
I just spent the last week driving a Hybrid camry, 1,000 miles/1600kms averaging 34 mpg.

Don't buy into the hype of these cars, they still burn fuel and pollute. If i was worried about fuel economy i would go the diesel route.

The volt will be interesting to watch, esp in winter time.
Click to expand...

First off, 1,600 km in a week is not typical GTA commuter duty and not the kind of driving where a hybrid will shine its best. That said, do you think a V6-equipped Camry would be able to pull off the same fuel economy?

Depending in type of hybrid drive-train (there are several radically different types of hybridization) and type of commute, you can save a little or a whole lot of fuel. And fuel not burned is fuel not polluting.
 
NP6000 said:
I have to disagree Rob. To illustrate my point, power plant emissions data from an EU study:

(Hard) Coal fired plant emissions: 0.78 g/hp-hr NOx & 3.21 g/hp-hr PM
MY2010 Heavy Duty Diesel Engine: 0.2g/hp-hr NOx & 0.2 g/hp-hr PM

Current gasoline engines are considerably cleaner than diesel - so you emissions per unit energy output would be even less for a gasoline engine.

Does anyone see why I am making such a big deal about where the energy for the plug-in hybrid comes from?

It gets better as you move towards cleaner forms of coal and gas fired plants, but they are on the same order for magnitude for a conventional IC.
Click to expand...

Disregard the source of the electricity as the majority of it is provided by nuclear and renewables, in this Province, to the tune of 60%+. Gas, coal, etc. are generally used as flex sources, in order to cover the need during high demand hours. As I said, electricity is source independent. If such vehicles are being charged overnight, then they're almost certainly going to be drawing on nuclear generation as a primary source.
 
turbodish said:
First off, 1,600 km in a week is not typical GTA commuter duty and not the kind of driving where a hybrid will shine its best. That said, do you think a V6-equipped Camry would be able to pull off the same fuel economy?

Depending in type of hybrid drive-train (there are several radically different types of hybridization) and type of commute, you can save a little or a whole lot of fuel. And fuel not burned is fuel not polluting.
Click to expand...

A hybrid driving along in the HOV lane will be marginally better than a 4 cylinder camry.
 
Englishj said:
A hybrid driving along in the HOV lane will be marginally better than a 4 cylinder camry.
Click to expand...

How would they compare in the segments of the commute before and after the highway?

NP6000 said:
We won't see eye to eye on this - lets agree to disagree. Your approach is micro, my approach is macro. I could certainly argue that the Vespa is way more eco-friendly than the H2. Neither of us would be equipped with the facts to argue one's point and I have no interest in doing a Life cycle analysis.
Click to expand...


My approach is practical, yours is not.
 
Last edited:
caboose483 said:
My approach is practical, yours is not.
Click to expand...

No it called having a big picture point of view. You seem to be stuck in a little box with a seemingly limited understanding of the what constitutes environmental impact... For that reason I won't bother to argue the point with you any longer.

Maybe we should all drive H2s instead right?
 
caboose483 said:
How would they compare in the segments of the commute before and after the highway?
Click to expand...

Are we talking about using the HOV lanes before or after the highway commute. No we are not. We are talking about HOV USE ON THE HIGHWAY, so your reference to the commute before and after is irrelevant.
 
NP6000 said:
No it called having a big picture point of view. You seem to be stuck in a little box with a seemingly limited understanding of the what constitutes environmental impact... For that reason I won't bother to argue the point with you any longer.

Maybe we should all drive H2s instead right?
Click to expand...

Until we live in a climate where a motorcycle or scooter could be a pracitcal only vehicle.. your side of the argument fails hard.
 
caboose483 said:
Until we live in a climate where a motorcycle or scooter could be a pracitcal only vehicle.. your side of the argument fails hard.
Click to expand...

I can comfortably say that a compact car winter commuter and a summer small cc motorbike (say a 2011 cbr 250) will fare much better than a year round H2.
 
NP6000 said:
I can comfortably say that a compact car winter commuter and a summer small cc motorbike (say a 2011 cbr 250) will fare much better than a year round H2.
Click to expand...

I can comfortably say that a compact car for year-round transportation is better still. If you want to be eco-friendly, sell your bike and buy a Yaris or Fiesta.. otherwise you're a hypocrite.

Riding a bike and thinking you're being eco-friendly makes you either ignorant or retarded.
 
Why would you want to ride a motorcycle on 400 series highways to begin with? It's either stop and go or buzz along at 120 km/h. Either of which is not very fun. I'd rather the cage for this type of driving.

We are a cranky bunch when we don't get to ride during the winter.

Carry on........
 
caboose483 said:
I can comfortably say that a compact car for year-round transportation is better still. If you want to be eco-friendly, sell your bike and buy a Yaris or Fiesta.. otherwise you're a hypocrite.

Riding a bike and thinking you're being eco-friendly makes you either ignorant or retarded.
Click to expand...

Speaking of ignorant and/or retarded - Please try to understand that low tailpipe emissions ≠ eco-friendly. You have yet to grasp that concept.

Similiarly zero tailpipe emissions is not necessarily eco-friendly either.

For the record the daily driver is a small compact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom