Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[TonyWilliams]

But... As an engineer I have a hard time wrapping my head around the "last 1 percent" diminishing returns problem with BEVs. All of us Leaf drivers (or GEN1 EV1 for that matter) know that 60-80 miles of range can cover most of our needs. Now with ubiquitous 25-50kW quick charging (in California at least) it's even better. But there are still many days when we'd really like to have more like 100-120+ miles of range and even with quick charging, a 70 mile BEV ain't gonna cut it for long distance travel. So the issue comes down to this:

We have gotten the 70-80 mile EV's (and 35-50 plug-in hybrids) because all those studies said that's all we need. CARB issued credits based on those studies. The state encouraged metro area DC charging only, because that's all you're supposed to do with an EV... the studies told them that.

Even though the state of California has been a signatory to the West Coast Electric Highway since 2009, no action has been taken... because H2 has been sold as the answer... in the future.

With Tesla out of the mix, it's failrly rare to have an all-EV household. Most are homeowners (a very important distinction) and have more than one car (usually one EV plus another hybrid or other car burning a fossil fuel in some way).

And therein is the single biggest problem; people don't live averages. They live those data points that make the average, which means they also live in apartments without any overnight charging option, or work odd hours like I spent my life doing, or forget to plug in, or don't have a spare oil car sitting around, or want to drive 5 miles round trip weekly, and 200-600 miles for the monthly fishing trip. All the above can still make the average, but not make the car work in its present state.

Averages are great until they don't work.

What we have done is DELIBERATELY hampered the development of EV's to fit those studies. Tesla, of course, never got the memo, and thankfully they have plunged headfirst into the plan that DOES REPLACE PETEOLEUM PERSONAL TRANSPORT at the lowest cost and lowest CO2 footprint. Tesla also wasn't feathering their bed for H2 cars, either, or hampering EV's on purpose (like selling the RAV4 EV without CHAdeMO, even though Toyota is a signatory member). Also, the state's of Washington and Oregon must have failed their H2 test, because they have a very well developed CHAdeMO network that's still growing.

If you're going to make a ZEV capable of going 300 miles, is it cheaper to add batteries or a small FC and an H2 tank? A hydrogen station with two pumps can feed as many miles/hour of juice as a Tesla Supercharger with 8 connections... if not more.

Cost is the ugly and simple answer. The only thing H2 does well is allow the conversion of a HUGE amount of electricity be converted to another medium (H2), that then allows the fastest "green" refueling rate, that is then converted back into electricity to propel the car.

That's it... fast refueling, at a huge cost to electricity efficiency, plus whatever other product is required to be the host to be converted to H2. Water is really a non-starter in California. Virtually all the others release CO2 into the atmosphere. And all those H2 mediums cost a LOT of money to get that fast refueling.

The 8 stall Supercharger is many MULTIPLES less expensive than your two nozzle H2 generation / delivery plant. And it never emits CO2 and uses 1/5 to 1/3 the total electricity per mile delivered.

At the end of the day >I< would be perfectly happy with a 120mile BEV with quick charging.. but I'm not the demographic Toyota and Honda are shooting for.

I find that I'm pretty happy with a 120-140 mile range car with quick charge, too. Clearly, there will be people (myself included) who would welcome the 150-300 mile cars, with quick charge.

Do you know what the studies don't tell us we want? A 265 mile range car that can refuel in 5 minutes that COSTS a huge amount more and adds CO2 to the atmosphere compared to a car that can go 265 miles at no cost and takes 30-45 to refuel without adding CO2.

 

[NeilBlanchard]

And fast refilling matters ONLY AFTER you can string together stops along the route of your choice.

 

[donald]

Donald, I dunno if this is "the answer" or "an answer", but ...Audi opens 6MW power-to-gas facility....

hmmmm. Intriguing.

So it mentions an 'e-gas' methane, rather than methanol. I'd agree converting to a liquid form makes more sense, but they don't seem to be doing that with it.

The intriguing bit comes where they are discussing burning bio-gas and taking that CO2 to make this e-gas with hydrogen. So is the biogas consumption for electrical energy production? If so, they are buring biogas to make electricity, then they take electricity making hydrogen and then e-gas with the biogas CO2 emissions..... I might be being thick here, but if they missed the step of burning the biogas and generating electricity, wouldn't then then omit the need to make e-gas because they still have this biogas? :?

Doesn't seem to explain very well why not just use the biogas in the first place?

 

[donald]

Might I just point out, in the 'H2 can refill so fast' corner of the ring that there's nothing really stopping batteries developing to the point they can charge at 20C rates. (20C = recharge in 3 minutes)

I see no particular reason to doubt the future for 20C battery packs any more than I do for the existence of future FCEVs. I can't see an argument as valid here where it parks EVs into a 'slow to recharge' camp and H2 into a 'fast to recharge'. Could work out the other way around.

With a 20C EV, battery capacities and other trivial issues actually disappear. I think this is the real future. Y'see, if you have a 100 mile range EV and want to do 500 miles today you'd think 'errr.. that's a lot of chargers I have to find' but if you were in a fuel powered car with a leaky tank that you could only fill up for a 100 miles worth you'd simply think 'I'll have to stop and fill up a few times, no sweat'.

In fact, I used to have a 2 stroke racer that only did around 80 miles on a tank (might have been rider-dependent mileage ! :twisted: ) Anyhow, it was never a problem to stop for a few minutes every hour and carry on.

I see the same for EVs. The future isn't huge packs, it's fast recharge times. If you have stations just like fuel stations now that have 500kW chargers, you pull over, plug in, go pay (yeah, you will have to do this one day, get used to the idea!), by the time you are back it's charged, keep going.

100 mile range is no problem when you can recharge in a few minutes.

So my point here is that H2 does not own a panacea of being CO2 emission free and being able to recharge quick. That advantage may be one that might appear to exist now, but it is not set in stone to be the only energy vector that can be recharged quick.

I'll mention that I have a particular interest in compressed, or liquefied, air as an energy vector for BEV REx. If you made a hollow body structure out of the car, you could use that as the pressure vessel. A recharge station would then not only be able to recharge your battery, but would have some isothermal reservoir it maintains that can then tank off pressurised gas into your car.

OK, I realise that's a thread drift from H2, but it's really disingenuous if H2 is held up to be the only way for fast CO2 free refuelling.

 

[donald]

We have gotten the 70-80 mile EV's (and 35-50 plug-in hybrids) because all those studies said that's all we need. CARB issued credits based on those studies.

Well, also because with today's manufacturing techniques, if you put a bigger battery into a car then the CO2 emissions from production go up, and lifetime CO2 emissions can then begin to exceed a plain-old dino-blood burning economy box.

If the grants are there to 'reduce CO2' there's no point in dishing grants to an 85 kWh EV if its production CO2 already exceeds the lifetime CO2 of a regular car.

There might be a $ budget case to make one, but not a CO2 budget case.

 

[mbender]

Donald, I dunno if this is "the answer" or "an answer", but ...Audi opens 6MW power-to-gas facility....

hmmmm. Intriguing.

So it mentions an 'e-gas' methane, rather than methanol. I'd agree converting to a liquid form makes more sense, but they don't seem to be doing that with it.

The intriguing bit comes where they are discussing burning ... and taking ... to make ... then they take ... making ... and then e-gas [...], wouldn't they then omit the need to make e-gas because they still have this biogas? :?

Doesn't seem to explain very well why not just use the biogas in the first place?

Yes, methane, not methanol, sorry about that. I also agree that it's a really convoluted process, and quite inefficient. Even the presenter claimed only 54 +/- 3%, and I imagine that is a very rosy estimate. Almost all of the questions after the talk were about efficiency and in each case the speaker gave a generic/hand-waving answer and said he'd be happy to go into further detail 1-on-1 after the Q&A (granted, they were short on time).

"Intuitively", it seems to me that there are just too many conversions and 'compressions', and actual transportation required to make dealing with H2 energy efficient (for light-duty vehicles) when compared with batteries. And the expense of the necessary supporting hardware for dealing with gases makes it "financially inefficient" as well. Especially with the energy density and cost/kWh of batteries already being good and only due to get better.

 

[GregH]

Please don't put me in the position of defending hydrogen...

It's not just refueling times, but also range.
Additional range is much easier/cheaper/lighter to add to a fuel cell car.

This is what the OEMs always point to because their focus groups say they need a car that can go 300 miles and refuel in minutes.
The fact that it's woefully inefficient as an energy carrier is lost on these people as they're comparing it to the 22mpg gas car, not a Leaf.

FWIW if we ever get 20C or 10C battery charging I don't think the stations would be that much cheaper than an H2 station :shock:

 

[donald]

Please don't put me in the position of defending hydrogen...

It's not just refueling times, but also range.
Additional range is much easier/cheaper/lighter to add to a fuel cell car.

But that was my point in the thread a couple up. Range doesn't really matter, so long as you have super fast charging.

If an EV did have super fast charging, then you'd specifically NOT want a big pack because that's just lugging extra mass around for no positive benefit for most of the time.

In an ICE, you can lug around an extra 10 kilos of fuel and barely notice it, but that'll be your back-up for an extra 100 miles, if you want it in the tank at all. The tank itself will weigh just a few kilos, so you can choose how much 'massive energy' you lug around, at will, just by controlling how much fuel you carry.

In an FCEV, most of the carried-energy related mass is the tank itself, so it's a dead weight for most of the car's life.

FWIW if we ever get 20C or 10C battery charging I don't think the stations would be that much cheaper than an H2 station

I'm sure you are right, but the difference is you have to go buy that H2 stuff 'from them' every time, whereas you get the 'cheap electricity' (or free solar) for 95% of the local journeys you do at home, and pay the piper when you need it for the long trip. Overall, the 20C charger could cost 10 times as much as H2 yet still work out cheaper overall.

 

[GRA]

Via GCC:

DOE reports progress on development of low-carbon and renewable sources of hydrogen production

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/11/20141121-doeh2.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is another summary of a section of the 1,000 plus page 2014 DoE paper I linked to earlier. A few quotes, since the subject of photochemical H2 production, Pt cost and availability etc. was mentioned recently:

The objective of the Hydrogen Production sub-program is to reduce the cost of hydrogen dispensed at the pump to a cost that is competitive on a cents-per-mile basis with competing vehicle technologies. Based on current analysis, this translates to a hydrogen threshold cost of <$4 per kg hydrogen (produced, delivered, and dispensed, but untaxed) by 2020, apportioned to <$2/kg for production only. . . .

For FY 2014, the Hydrogen Production sub-program continued to focus on developing technologies to enable the long-term viability of hydrogen as an energy carrier for a range of applications with a focus on hydrogen from low-carbon and renewable sources. Progress continued in several key areas, including electrolysis, photoelectrochemical (PEC), biological, and solar-thermochemical hydrogen production.

There are multiple DOE offices are engaged in R&D relevant to hydrogen production. FCTO’s focus is developing technologies for distributed and centralized renewable production of hydrogen. Distributed production options under development include reforming of bio-derived renewable liquids and electrolysis of water. Centralized renewable production options include water electrolysis integrated with renewable power generation (e.g., wind, solar, hydroelectric, and geothermal power), biomass gasification, solar-driven high- temperature thermochemical water splitting, direct photoelectrochemical water splitting, and biological processes. . . .

In FY 2014, the major emphasis of the electrolysis activities were cost reduction and efficiency improvement through leveraging fuel cell catalyst development. Among the developments here were:

A nano-structured thin film catalyst anode technology was tested under electrolysis conditions and demonstrated comparable performance at 1/16th of the anode PGM loading relative to a 2013 baseline.

The manufacture of core shell catalyst technology developed by Brookhaven National Laboratory was successfully transferred to its facility and achieved equivalent cathode performance at 1/10th of the cathode PGM loading relative to the 2013 baseline.

An improved drying technique was developed with the potential to reduce drying losses in electrolyzers to less than 3.5% (compared with 11-8% in commercial systems) while operating on a variable (wind or solar) stack power profile. Testing is in progress to verify that the new technique meets SAE International Standard J2719 specifications for water content (<5 ppm).

In the area of photoelectrochemical (PEC) hydrogen production, semiconductor tandem devices were shown to have more than 300 hours of stability at ~15 mA/cm2 in III-V semiconductor photoelectrochemical tandem devices, showing a significant improvement over the previous year’s 115 hours at 10 mA/cm2. This result represents an important step toward demonstration of stabilized solar-to-hydrogen conversion efficiencies >20% using PEC devices.

In the area of biological hydrogen production, a larger, more scalable microbial reverse-electrodialysis cell design demonstrated a 0.9 L/L-reactor/day hydrogen production rate, a 12.5% increase over the 2013 demonstrated rate, using a salinity gradient instead of grid electricity. Other technical progress in this area included [Details snipped]. . . .

Efforts in solar-thermochemical hydrogen characterized the performance of water splitting by novel, non-volatile metal-oxide based reaction materials and developed new reactor concepts to optimize efficiency of the reaction cycles. Other progress included [Details snipped]

There's far more included n the article for those who are interested, or you can read the actual reports.

 

[AndyH]

Donald, you're staying on the troll/ignore list.

Telling me to go look at several hours of youtube videos isn't an answer to 'where is there a functioning commercial system'. The question's pretty simple.

<facepalm> Donald - I answered your question DIRECTLY using about 15 words immediately before you asked the same question a second time. Instead of kicking you in the head, I pushed that aside and provided a fully-supported answer with all the supporting detail and direct links to the principals actually designing, installing, and operating the tech.

How do you respond? You complain because you just want someone to deliver the answer, yet you completely fail to recognize that you've been delivered the answer TWICE and you didn't even have to do your job, which is to become familiar with the subject before you insist on the other members serving you. :evil:

Just tell me where? Jeez. It's a simple, straightforward question, honestly put forward as a point of interest. I don't believe there are any because I haven't seen any, and no-one's saying where they are.

It sounds a bit like you telling me Jesus lives, and I say 'what's his address' and you tell me 'go read the Bible, that will tell you'.

Of COURSE you haven't seen any because you have STILL failed to open your eyes and look at what's hidden in plain sight directly in front of you.

Had you at least read the summary of the TIR that I brought you, you'd understand why H2 is being used and more importantly HOW it's being used. Since it's being used to store renewable energy that would (as of today) be curtailed and thus lost, you might understand that you're looking for some type of H2 generation capability, and it's probably got something to do with either wind, PV, or both.

Had you then read my damn WORDS - both the first AND second time - that directly answered your question about the fact that there are indeed wind to H2 facilities in operation today (you'd have learned that by watching the talk by the CEO of the company that's BUILDING the stuff) - then you'd have a fully detailed answer to your question that leaves absolutely no doubt about what's happening in the real world today.

But you not only didn't read the thread (your responsibility), and you didn't acknowledge that we've already brought you the answer (not our responsibility), but you decided that passive-agressively berating 'the forum' because your needs weren't met. That's the kind of behavior I expected from my son when he was six. I don't get that from him now that he's 12 - and it's certainly not beneficial behavior from an adult.

- Germany has adopted the TIR. The TIR requires storage. A major part of that storage is H2 electrolysis, with H2 currently being stored in the national natural gas grid. The first batch of 8 wind to H2 plants scheduled in Germany consists of seven that are under construction today, and one that is complete and started operation in August of 2013.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpZV6qtl_kY[/youtube]

 

[AndyH]

And fast refilling matters ONLY AFTER you can string together stops along the route of your choice.

This is a fact whether the connector dispenses H2, electrons to a Tesla (while providing Zero support to any other BEV), or CHAdeMO.

The initial benefit of a fuel cell car is that they're landing with Tesla range - and the H2 network can look similar to the SC network. The significant difference is that the H2 nozzle is a world-wide standard and it will work for the Hyundai, the Honda, the Toyota, the BMW, and the rest when they arrive.

Long-range BEV travel today is limited to the well-off that can afford an expensive car that's not only a beautiful engineering achievement but is way too large for commuting or for most Americans to drive or park. Yes, one can drive from Canada to Mexico in a Tesla or a DCQC-capable Leaf, one cannot drive either east to west across California. Only the long-range Model S can drive east to west, and only on the (I think single) route connected with SC infrastructure. No other BEV can use that infrastructure, even if they had the range available to make it from one to the next.

 

[AndyH]

This is what the OEMs always point to because their focus groups say they need a car that can go 300 miles and refuel in minutes.
The fact that it's woefully inefficient as an energy carrier is lost on these people as they're comparing it to the 22mpg gas car, not a Leaf.

That's a very significant observation, and it's a place I have to agree with the 'Toyota' view - the cars we need to make redundant are ICE. The ~20% (in)efficiency of the ICE completely ignores the energy that went into making oil. The system efficiency is lower than the 1-3% for photosynthesis - as that's the energy that was gathered by plants that became oil, and the laws of thermodynamics still force energy losses from algae to refinery to tank...

FWIW if we ever get 20C or 10C battery charging I don't think the stations would be that much cheaper than an H2 station :shock:

I expect you already know that current-tech lithium can be recharged at a 10C rate - for a 6 minute recharge. Not only would the charger charger stack be expensive, but the transmission required to feed electricity would be as well.

I really wish one tech or the other brought a free lunch, but I'm not seeing it yet.

 

[AndyH]

Donald, I dunno if this is "the answer" or "an answer", but ...Audi opens 6MW power-to-gas facility....

hmmmm. Intriguing.

So it mentions an 'e-gas' methane, rather than methanol. I'd agree converting to a liquid form makes more sense, but they don't seem to be doing that with it.

The intriguing bit comes where they are discussing burning ... and taking ... to make ... then they take ... making ... and then e-gas [...], wouldn't they then omit the need to make e-gas because they still have this biogas? :?

Doesn't seem to explain very well why not just use the biogas in the first place?

Yes, methane, not methanol, sorry about that. I also agree that it's a really convoluted process, and quite inefficient. Even the presenter claimed only 54 +/- 3%, and I imagine that is a very rosy estimate. Almost all of the questions after the talk were about efficiency and in each case the speaker gave a generic/hand-waving answer and said he'd be happy to go into further detail 1-on-1 after the Q&A (granted, they were short on time).

"Intuitively", it seems to me that there are just too many conversions and 'compressions', and actual transportation required to make dealing with H2 energy efficient (for light-duty vehicles) when compared with batteries. And the expense of the necessary supporting hardware for dealing with gases makes it "financially inefficient" as well. Especially with the energy density and cost/kWh of batteries already being good and only due to get better.

The Audi system is a separate project and not directly tied into the TIR. TIR uses H2 to store electricity, to allow temporal shifting (to use winter wind in the summer), to supply transportation, and to supply process heat (replacing natural gas). Audi's 'next step' process of making synthetic methane from atmospheric CO2 is their own process to make carbon neutral biogas to feed 'cng' combustion engines.

Absolutely - plenty of conversions with plenty of losses. But we're in exactly the same boat with oil, uranium, and everything else we do. The laws of thermodynamics are still in play.

 

[lorenfb]

So what is the aversion in this thread to having a non-ICE range extender, e.g. a FC, that provides
an interim solution as future battery chemistry evolves?

Isn't it the goal, as expressed by many in this thread, to reduce the dependence on ICE vehicles
as quickly as possible while making the transition from an ICE vehicle as 'transparent' as possible to
a potential buyer, i.e. providing a desirable range with a minimal recharging time at a reasonable cost.
Why does the only solution have to be the "brute-force" solution in achieving a desirable range, be that
taken by Tesla?

 

[TonyWilliams]

So what is the aversion in this thread to having a non-ICE range extender, e.g. a FC, that provides
an interim solution as future battery chemistry evolves?

Isn't it the goal, as expressed by many in this thread, to reduce the dependence on ICE vehicles
as quickly as possible while making the transition from an ICE vehicle as 'transparent' as possible to
a potential buyer, i.e. providing a desirable range with a minimal recharging time at a reasonable cost.
Why does the only solution have to be the "brute-force" solution in achieving a desirable range, be that
taken by Tesla?

Why is H2 the only answer for some?

There have been solutions offered with batteries that go from one extreme to another.... 300 miles with big battery or 100 miles with really fast charge (20C).

I guess the point is H2 really isn't needed, plus H2 has a lot of "issues".

 

[donald]

<facepalm> Donald - I answered your question DIRECTLY using about 15 words immediately before you asked the same question a second time.

The conversation was about GRID storage as H2, not about "power to gas". So, no, you didn't answer the question, you answered another question.

Interesting as it is, to turn excess electricity to H2, it's not really 'H2 storage' if it only serves to dilute the natural gas mains.

So let's run with this installation you've now pinpointed. Where does it come in the world's top 10 ROI energy storage installations to make this thing THE answer to energy storage today?

Instead of kicking you in the head, I pushed that aside and provided a fully-supported answer with all the supporting detail and direct links to the principals actually designing, installing, and operating the tech.

Heh. Well, I do appreciate what you put, just couldn't see the connection to H2 energy storage. Only seemed to relate to CH4 substitute generation. It's thought provoking, though, to consider how you looked at my question in the first place; "Shall I kick this guy in the head, or give him some info?". I'm glad you arrived at the latter solution, but have some concerns the former would ever occur to you as a response.

 

[DNAinaGoodWay]

So what is the aversion in this thread to having a non-ICE range extender, e.g. a FC, that provides
an interim solution as future battery chemistry evolves?

Isn't it the goal, as expressed by many in this thread, to reduce the dependence on ICE vehicles
as quickly as possible while making the transition from an ICE vehicle as 'transparent' as possible to
a potential buyer, i.e. providing a desirable range with a minimal recharging time at a reasonable cost.
Why does the only solution have to be the "brute-force" solution in achieving a desirable range, be that
taken by Tesla?

Why is H2 the only answer for some?

There have been solutions offered with batteries that go from one extreme to another.... 300 miles with big battery or 100 miles with really fast charge (20C).

I guess the point is H2 really isn't needed, plus H2 has a lot of "issues".

Not really needed, and has issues, but it's going to come anyway. But until the cost comes down and many more stations are built, it's not going to grow very fast. But there is a value in variety.

 

[GRA]

So what is the aversion in this thread to having a non-ICE range extender, e.g. a FC, that provides
an interim solution as future battery chemistry evolves?

Isn't it the goal, as expressed by many in this thread, to reduce the dependence on ICE vehicles
as quickly as possible while making the transition from an ICE vehicle as 'transparent' as possible to
a potential buyer, i.e. providing a desirable range with a minimal recharging time at a reasonable cost.
Why does the only solution have to be the "brute-force" solution in achieving a desirable range, be that
taken by Tesla?

Why is H2 the only answer for some?

There have been solutions offered with batteries that go from one extreme to another.... 300 miles with big battery or 100 miles with really fast charge (20C).

I guess the point is H2 really isn't needed, plus H2 has a lot of "issues".

Tony, exactly who believes that "H2 is the only answer"? Certainly not Andy or I, as we've repeatedly stated (including Andy quite recently). I'm really curious as to just who you think is saying this. Will you please provide a quote from someone who has done so before repeating this claim, because for the life of me I can't recall anyone doing so anywhere in this thread?

As to Loren's question, beats me. Some of us are perfectly comfortable with BEV, FCEV/FCHV and/or PHFCEV (or PHEV for that matter), whichever works best for the given situation and gets us to the ultimate goal of non-fossil-fuel transport, fastest and cheapest while giving us a large early reduction to buy us time to optimize our choices.

 

[TonyWilliams]

So what is the aversion in this thread to having a non-ICE range extender, e.g. a FC, that provides
an interim solution as future battery chemistry evolves?

Isn't it the goal, as expressed by many in this thread, to reduce the dependence on ICE vehicles
as quickly as possible while making the transition from an ICE vehicle as 'transparent' as possible to
a potential buyer, i.e. providing a desirable range with a minimal recharging time at a reasonable cost.
Why does the only solution have to be the "brute-force" solution in achieving a desirable range, be that
taken by Tesla?

Why is H2 the only answer for some?

There have been solutions offered with batteries that go from one extreme to another.... 300 miles with big battery or 100 miles with really fast charge (20C).

I guess the point is H2 really isn't needed, plus H2 has a lot of "issues".

Tony, exactly who believes that "H2 is the only answer"? Certainly not Andy or I, as we've repeatedly stated (including Andy quite recently). I'm really curious as to just who you think is saying this. Will you please provide a quote from someone who has done so before repeating this claim, because for the life of me I can't recall anyone doing so anywhere in this thread?

As to Loren's question, beats me. Some of us are perfectly comfortable with BEV, FCEV/FCHV and/or PHFCEV (or PHEV for that matter), whichever works best for the given situation and gets us to the ultimate goal of non-fossil-fuel transport, fastest and cheapest while giving us a large early reduction to buy us time to optimize our choices.

It's a glib comment of the situation. I'm confident many / most understand the intent of my message. Some support H2, some support batteries.

There's lots of middle ground in those extremes.

 

[AndyH]

Tony, exactly who believes that "H2 is the only answer"? Certainly not Andy or I, as we've repeatedly stated (including Andy quite recently). I'm really curious as to just who you think is saying this. Will you please provide a quote from someone who has done so before repeating this claim, because for the life of me I can't recall anyone doing so anywhere in this thread?

Propaganda won't be supported with facts, Guy.

The article I received today reminded me how early we are in the electrification process and thus that we'd benefit greatly by staying balanced...

http://evworld.com/focus.cfm?cid=250

22 Nov 2014 -- The Nebraska city of Bellevue, the third largest in the state, has become one of the first to acquire electric cars for their fleet. The community whose motto has long been 'From Arrows to Aerospace' in recognition of its largest employer, nearby Offutt Air Force Base, also now can proudly proclaim it has 'plugged into the future' as it acquires its first two electric cars.

After nearly two decades of covering the EV world, which usually meant traveling to the coasts, it's exciting and encouraging for me personally to see communities in EV World's own backyard now discovering the benefits of plugging in. Here's hoping that my own hometown of Papillion also catches the vision and when Omaha starts deploying EVs I will know this 17-year campaign to help create a more sustainable world will have been won, at least on one small front.

While CA might be a comfortable spot for those that can afford extra-large cars with commensurate battery capacities, the rest of the country is not in the same condition - and that's got nothing to do with CARB or Toyota...