Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[Nubo]

...
2012 ------------ 0.79%
2018 ------------ 2.00%
2019 ------------ 4.00%
2020 ------------ 6.00%
2021 ------------ 8.00%
2022 ----------- 10.00%
2023 ----------- 12.00%
2024 ----------- 14.00%
2025 ----------- 16.00%

That means that if Toyota meat the 2012-2014 ZEV requirement with 2600 cars at 3 credits each = 7800 credits for 0.79%

For 2015-2017, with 2%, or 254% more than 0.79%

254% multiplied by 7800 credits equals 19,812 credits for 2015-2017 divided by a glorious NINE (9) credits for each hydrogen car equals...

drum roll....

2200 cars, or 400 less than the Rav4 EV.

But just look 2019,2020 etc. Every year they would have to sell thousands more compared to earlier year.

That's when it starts getting "real" and I imagine the car makers fully expect those requirements to "go away" or be significantly relaxed, as they have so many times.

 

[ydnas7]

not this time, LEAF 150EPA and Tesla Gen III pretty much closes up that option. although perhaps NG vehicles will qualify as they have very low air pollution.

Hydrogen, :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[GRA]

I calculated you could cover every major freeway and highway in the state at 150 mile intervals (i.e. 1/2 of the max. range) with about 20 H2 stations, so it's not as if this is unaffordable. Hell, just a single station in Sacramento could cover all the Bay Area/Tahoe traffic, cause with the range the fuel cell cars have they can easily do Sac-Sac round trip in winter while making free use of heat and defrost, something that's almost certainly impossible for a Tesla 60 and unlikely in an 85. Longer, largely weather-independent range is a huge operational advantage.

What if you live in Tahoe? Do you drive down to get fuel weekly? Tesla can refuel at home.
It is not just cross country driving but day to day commuting.

We've already covered this. If you live in Tahoe, you won't consider the car until there's a local fueling station. In the meantime, Tahoe residents can continue to drive whatever they do now, being as green as they care to be by driving a hybrid, PHEV or BEV. Really, which markets are going to generate more customers, the S.F. Bay and Sacramento metropolitan areas, or Lake Tahoe? If the demand is there for a fueling station in the Lake Tahoe area, then they'll appear. But with 300+ mile range FCEVs, they aren't essential for the people who take the majority of trips to Lake Tahoe.

 

[GRA]

wouldn't be a problem for an H2 PHEV

Indeed. At the moment no one is considering producing one, as I imagine it would drive the cost even higher than it already is. Alternatively there's the multi-car approach, with a BEV for local driving and an FCEV for when you need to go out of town. I'm guessing that's how the family in my neighborhood who have a LEAF and a Toyota Highlander FCHV-ADV use them, although I haven't seen the Highlander for a couple of weeks now so maybe their lease is up; they also have a couple of other small CUVs. The Highlander wouldn't have been terribly convenient, as there's currently just one public H2 fueling station in the Bay Area and it's about 15 miles away, but it is enroute to Napa, Marin and Tahoe. In the next year or so we're scheduled to get several more H2 stations in the bay area as part of the FCEV rollout, including one here in-town.

 

[GRA]

wouldn't be a problem for an H2 PHEV

How many electric miles does this Toyota get?

All of them, of course.

 

[Berlino]

In Connecticut's recently published ZEV action plan, they map two existing and three planned Hydrogen stations, so I guess the budget for that is greater than the $1M slated for DCQC installations at highway rest stops.

I am getting bogged down sifting through various documents on proposed and enacted ZEV regulations. Is it true that "traveling credits" for FCV sales will be available until 2025!??

 

[evnow]

That's when it starts getting "real" and I imagine the car makers fully expect those requirements to "go away" or be significantly relaxed, as they have so many times.

I think it is tougher this time. They actually already tried to lobby to change the rules - and were rebuffed.

The fact that Leaf (and Model S) exist make it tougher for OEMs to claim that the target is not realistic.

 

[TonyWilliams]

I am getting bogged down sifting through various documents on proposed and enacted ZEV regulations. Is it true that "traveling credits" for FCV sales will be available until 2025!??

It's only true that the automakers want traveling credits to go on forever, for they fear it will be ten times harder to sell minimum effort sub-100 mile compliance cars in New York p, for instance,than California.

But, they are schedule to go away in 2018.

 

[TonyWilliams]

That's when it starts getting "real" and I imagine the car makers fully expect those requirements to "go away" or be significantly relaxed, as they have so many times.

I think it is tougher this time. They actually already tried to lobby to change the rules - and were rebuffed.

The fact that Leaf (and Model S) exist make it tougher for OEMs to claim that the target is not realistic.

Auto manufacturer's Oct 19, 2012 request to EPA for waiver from CARB:

http://www.globalautomakers.org/sites/default/files/document/attachments/JointCommentsCAWaiverRequest10-19-12.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"It is highly unlikely that the required infrastructure and the level of consumer demand for ZEVs will be sufficient by MY2018 in either California or in the individual Section 177 States to support the ZEV sales requirements mandated by CARB. EPA should therefore deny, at the present time, California’s waiver request for the ZEV program for these model years. During the interim, Global Automakers and the Alliance believe that California and EPA, with full auto industry participation, should implement a review for the ZEV program similar to the mid-term review process adopted under the federal GHG and CAFE regulations for MYs2017 through 2025."

 

[ydnas7]

Auto manufacturer's Oct 19, 2012 request to EPA for waiver from CARB:

http://www.globalautomakers.org/sites/default/files/document/attachments/JointCommentsCAWaiverRequest10-19-12.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

why am I not surprised that the name Tesla is not referenced in that document.

2012 was a poor year for EVS, 2013 EVs were back on track.
methinks Tesla and LEAF will keep getting more sales volume, and improve. The carb rules are not particularly onerous, they set linear growth, so only the start is difficult, the later years will actually be easy.

Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles, :lol:
Tesla went coast to coast already, by end of year the whole USA will effectively be covered. Infrastructure problem - solved

 

[Berlino]

It's only true that the automakers want traveling credits to go on forever, for they fear it will be ten times harder to sell minimum effort sub-100 mile compliance cars in New York p, for instance,than California.

But, they are schedule to go away in 2018.

This is reassuring. I thought I had read that the "infrastructure will not be ready" argument had won in the case of Hydrogen, so FCV credits would continue to travel.

 

[AndyH]

Tesla went coast to coast already, by end of year the whole USA will effectively be covered. Infrastructure problem - solved

I guess life's gonna be good for the tiny minority that own a Tesla, then - good for them!

Meanwhile, what's coming for all the 'little people'?

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Tesla went coast to coast already, by end of year the whole USA will effectively be covered. Infrastructure problem - solved

I guess life's gonna be good for the tiny minority that own a Tesla, then - good for them!

Meanwhile, what's coming for all the 'little people'?

covering the range of the vehicle on various interstates does not solve the problem of the infrastructure unless the lowest common denominator is addressed and that is a 60 kw Tesla in inclement weather. I think that solution is a bit more than a year away

 

[smkettner]

Primary EV charging infrastructure for the masses will be home charging for a looong time.
Best of luck with hydrogen.

 

[TomT]

An interesting aside...

"Coral Davenport at the NY Times reports on a study to be published on Friday: '...a surprising new report...concludes that switching buses and trucks from traditional diesel fuel to natural gas could actually harm the planet's climate.' The report apparently documents that the leaks of methane that occur when drilling for natural gas more than make up for the climate change benefits of using natural gas as a transportation fuel. The report will be published Friday in the journal Science."

 

[jsongster]

I read the thing about natural gas also... bad news for all of us... but especially T. Boone Pickens. Just as we are replacing coal facilities with ng... and that is still worthwhile as this report also points out, since coal is still far worse. Anyone paying attention to the many recent, mega toxic, coal ash water pollution. Basically with coal... even after it is burned... the ash is even worse for the world, Pollutes the air and the water. Time for wind and solar folks... and hydro... and big batteries... and grid connected cars v to h...

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

An interesting aside...

"Coral Davenport at the NY Times reports on a study to be published on Friday: '...a surprising new report...concludes that switching buses and trucks from traditional diesel fuel to natural gas could actually harm the planet's climate.' The report apparently documents that the leaks of methane that occur when drilling for natural gas more than make up for the climate change benefits of using natural gas as a transportation fuel. The report will be published Friday in the journal Science."

methane floats so would be easy to catch. the rest, not so much. I suggest we require a large canopy over every drilling operation to capture and use the gases that escape.

weekly inspections paid by the drilling companies to insure compliance along with a monthly progress report grading them against all other drilling companies. this ranking would be used to penalize companies who fall into the 4th quartile of perfomance.

this would insure that the biggest polluters are forced out and the "shortcutters" are simply scared away.

my real hope with all this is the cost will simply become unattractive and companies looking to make a fast buck will move on to greener pastures

 

[RegGuheert]

An interesting aside...

"Coral Davenport at the NY Times reports on a study to be published on Friday: '...a surprising new report...concludes that switching buses and trucks from traditional diesel fuel to natural gas could actually harm the planet's climate.' The report apparently documents that the leaks of methane that occur when drilling for natural gas more than make up for the climate change benefits of using natural gas as a transportation fuel. The report will be published Friday in the journal Science."

There are still a lot of unknowns with methane. Thus far, the IPCC has been completely unable to correctly predict even the CONCENTRATION of methane in the atmosphere. Despite man's efforts to increase it, we have hardly made a dent:

Also, the authors of that paper still feel that natural gas is preferable to coal:

While we found that official inventories tend to under-estimate total methane leakage, leakage rates are unlikely to be high enough to undermine the climate benefits of gas versus coal.

It makes one wonder: If the methane leakage rates are really HIGHER than official estimates, than why are methane concentrations in the atmosphere significantly LOWER than official estimates? Perhaps something destroys atmospheric methane faster than was assumed in the models used to make those projections.

 

[DaveEV]

Also, the authors of that paper still feel that natural gas is preferable to coal

Well of course - the authors were comparing NG buses to diesel buses, not coal buses. The only coal powered buses I'm aware of are the electric ones. And I think we all can agree that electric buses powered by coal is still better than diesel.

Perhaps something destroys atmospheric methane faster than was assumed in the models used to make those projections.

Does it really matter when methane simply turns into CO2 when destroyed? I guess it doesn't if you don't agree that CO2 is screwing with our climate, but obviously you disagree there. Sure, that means that limits the short-term global warming effect of methane, but even at a reduced rate, it's still bad. Of course, there's always the other reason that atmospheric methane is growing slower than expected - we're simply not emitting as much methane as scientists originally projected. Which makes sense - methane is a very useful gas when captured.

 

[WetEV]

It makes one wonder: If the methane leakage rates are really HIGHER than official estimates, than why are methane concentrations in the atmosphere significantly LOWER than official estimates? Perhaps something destroys atmospheric methane faster than was assumed in the models used to make those projections.

Methane leakage IN THE USA is higher than official estimates. The USA is about 2% of the surface area of the Earth.