Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[TonyWilliams]

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...

Yes, it wasn't CARB or California that outlawed the sale of Tesla cars in Texas. It was Texas.

But, even Texans get Tesla cars. Imagine, your very own 265 mile EPA rated car, that has all wheel drive and 0-60 in 3.2 seconds. And, you can buy it and drive it now (except for Texas and the handful of other back-woods states).

Also, CARB has nothing to do with Texas, therefore Toyota won't be offering that hydrogen car you might have a fancy for. But, even if you bought ithat Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, VW, Mercedes, Ford, BMW or other H2 car in California or one of the northeast CARB-ZEV states, and then imported it to Texas, you couldn't find a place to fuel it up anyway. Nor will it accelerate like a Tesla, or have all wheel drive, or a nationwide (and worldwide) quick recharging network, or anything else like a Tesla.

Nor will it COST the same as a Tesla. Yes, the subsidized price to you may be cheaper, but only for as long as Toyota, et al, and governments support it.

********

Andy, you seem to have a burr under your saddle about CARB.. Why not give us all the details on that state of yours, Texas, with all their grandiose H2 infrastructure plans? Don't spare us any of the details... we want to hear it ALL.

Oh... they don't have any plans? And no H2 cars coming?

*********

It's like playing softball... and you throw an easy hitter every time.

 

[TonyWilliams]

If there was one transport model that I thought would possibly be "the" niche for H2, I would say that would be busses.

But, BYD keeps knocking it out of the park with ELECTRIC busses, worldwide.

I actually rode on one of the two BYD busses in London and talked to the driver. He had a lot of time in this bus, and mentioned first that it didn't turn as far left as right (or vice versa, but not an EV issue).

He never mentioned anything bad about it being an EV, because to him, it was virtually identical to the oil bus EXCEPT IT HAD A LOT MORE POWER !!! You won't have to worry about that with pure H2 busses. He claimed he kept going over the 30mph speed limit in London because it accelerated faster.

Also, I asked about range, and he claimed it went just as far as a diesel bus... ALL DAY. No change to their operation, except at night when it got recharged up instead of filled with petrol/diesel. Certainly, there is no need for any hybrid power source (H2, diesel, petrol, vegetable oil, CNG, etc) if the bus can get the job done without it.

The heater was "hybrid", burning either diesel or alcohol to heat the bus cabin. Very smart, and simple, in my opinion.

So, why would a city want a more expensive and complicated H2 bus that still required batteries? If they were running it 23 hours per day, with just enough break for refuel and driver change. But, almost no city does that. Airlines don't do that.

Neither all the planes, nor all the busses must run continuously. That means, for a bus route that runs 24 hours, you swap out busses from all the parked busses during the night as they get recharged. Still no H2 needed.

http://insideevs.com/byd-unveils-new-k9-12d-electric-bus-brazil" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[TonyWilliams]

So, in 5-10 years, who will be driving an H2 car in Montana? I suspect absolutley nobody, since there won't be any sold there, nor will there be refueling options.

Will there be EV's? Some, but I grew up there and know how backwards thinking that place can be.

Here's whats different. Little ole Tony, all by himself, can drive my Tesla Model X pulling a trailer full of DC chargers to Great Falls, Montana, drive to the city office and somewhat easily get permits to install theses chargers around the city.

They can be up and running in weeks. Anybody who wanted an EV could have one imported and then just as easily install an overnight charge station.

Done.

Now, when does H2 come to Montana? Who is going to pay for it?

It's a non-starter, as I think Tesla will have the state mostly taken care of by default. There may already be more Tesla charging stations than actual cars in the state!

 

[GRA]

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.

Tony, I don't know of any people here who support H2 and don't support batteries, but the reverse obviously isn't the case, so the 'middle ground' you mention seems to be heavily skewed to one side. Personally, I support any non-fossil fuel tech or techs ,alone or in combination, which work, have low environmental costs and is/are affordable. That is, I'm fine with batteries, fuel cells, compressed air, bio-fuels, fusion, human power and whatever else might come down the road for transport, as there are a wide variety of uses which can't currently be served by any one fuel/energy carrier (unlike fossil fuels), and have similarly catholic tastes when it comes to energy generation. IME, AE is inherently site and use specific, and trying to assert that one type is universally 'better' than another is the equivalent of being limited to a hammer as your sole tool.

In addition to the above, all AE techs have, without exception, overpromised and underdelivered on their promoter's predictions of the rate of future cost and performance improvements. Why would anyone _depend_ on current predictions to settle on one now? Relying on any one of them at any time, but especially at this early stage of their development, strikes me as extremely short-sighted, and while we'll undoubtedly waste some money as we winnow out the winners from the losers, it will ultimately cost us less in the long run, and be more robust too.

Besides, every past fuel/energy switch, from wood to coal to petroleum, hailed at the time as providing huge benefits, has come with totally unforeseen negative environmental or health consequences that only become apparent when the tech has achieved a large-scale penetration. ICEs were so applauded on public health grounds when they were introduced and started to replace horses; at the time it was estimated that in New York City alone, horses deposited 1.3 million pounds of manure on the streets every DAY, with comparable quantities of equine urine.

I certainly hope that we won't experience a similar rude and unforeseen awakening when we're all living in some future non-fossil fuel powered utopia, but I'm not willing to bet against it. But that crisis is for future generations.

 

[Zythryn]

GRA, I don't believe anyone here has said hydrogen research should stop, or that it has no applications.
Most here, myself included, feel hydrogen for the light vehicle fleet is foolish.

Andy further stokes the fire by grouping others who don't agree with him and calling them the "give me battery or give me death" crew.
This is of course, silly. Any of us would like to see alternatives that work.
What many of us hate seeing is for the Fuel Cell industry guiding policy in CA and giving a disproportionate amount of funds to FCEVs.
This not only gives lousy return on investment, it slows the adoption of other alternatives.

Can you imagine how many CHAdeMO chargers 46 Million could buy?
You could develope a much better working quick charge network and distribute it throughout CA for that.

Instead we will see that money used to build 46 stations to support 2-3 thousand cars over the next three years.

If that isn't a boondoggle I don't know what is.

 

[AndyH]

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...

Yes, it wasn't CARB or California that outlawed the sale of Tesla cars in Texas. It was Texas.

And this has exactly what to do with the topic? Oh yes - absolutely nothing.

But, even Texans get Tesla cars. Imagine, your very own 265 mile EPA rated car, that has all wheel drive and 0-60 in 3.2 seconds. And, you can buy it and drive it now (except for Texas and the handful of other back-woods states).

I don't want one. It's too big, not efficient, and has a lifecycle carbon footprint the size of a wooly mammoth.

Also, CARB has nothing to do with Texas, therefore Toyota won't be offering that hydrogen car you might have a fancy for. But, even if you bought ithat Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, VW, Mercedes, Ford, BMW or other H2 car in California or one of the northeast CARB-ZEV states, and then imported it to Texas, you couldn't find a place to fuel it up anyway. Nor will it accelerate like a Tesla, or have all wheel drive, or a nationwide (and worldwide) quick recharging network, or anything else like a Tesla.

As I've already told you and others in this thread that while CA produced about 1/3 of this nation's H2, most of the rest is produced in this part of the country. Texas has a lot of hydrogen today, they have H2 pipelines, and large warehouses are transitioning their old battery equipment to fuel cells. The fact remains that if I owned a Hyundai Tucson FCEV today, I could travel the entire state using current infrastructure, while I certainly cannot in either a Leaf or a Model S. I realize you don't do facts, and I might as well be pissin' in the wind here, but I don't want your skewed view of the world to rub-off on any normal people. :lol:

Houston, TX - H2 refueling stations - 2008. Read it and weep, sweetheart.
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/blog...ydrogen-fueling-station-in-texas-to-be-built/

According to Martin Schuermann, CEO of Vision Industries, “We are very happy and excited about the decision by TERP to support this first, large-scale commercial hydrogen fueling station in the world. It will support a fleet of 20 Hydrogen Class 8 trucks initially. However, since hydrogen is supplied through a pipeline, this station could ultimately supply hydrogen for up to 1,000 trucks.”

With an H2 fueling station in Houston, TX, Vision Industries can now expand their operations to other shipping ports in the southern states of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida. Although the next apple of their eye may be the Big Apple, New York City on the eastern seaboard.

Nor will it COST the same as a Tesla. Yes, the subsidized price to you may be cheaper, but only for as long as Toyota, et al, and governments support it.

You talk as if Tesla or their well-off owners and the fossil fuel industry aren't receiving hand-outs from the gub-mint... :roll:

********

Andy, you seem to have a burr under your saddle about CARB.. Why not give us all the details on that state of yours, Texas, with all their grandiose H2 infrastructure plans? Don't spare us any of the details... we want to hear it ALL.

Oh... they don't have any plans? And no H2 cars coming?

*********

It's like playing softball... and you throw an easy hitter every time.

I'm not the one bashing CARB - you're the one filling this forum with gripes about compliance cars and CARB requirements. And I've already told you twice that we already have 'starter' H2 infrastructure in Texas. Not that I expect you to acknowledge it this time, either. :lol: :lol:

And no - when normal people play softball one gets to throw and the other gets to bat. You cannot play both roles and still call it softball. :roll:

 

[AndyH]

GRA, I don't believe anyone here has said hydrogen research should stop, or that it has no applications.
Most here, myself included, feel hydrogen for the light vehicle fleet is foolish.

Andy further stokes the fire by grouping others who don't agree with him and calling them the "give me battery or give me death" crew.

This is of course, silly. Any of us would like to see alternatives that work.

That's your interpretation. Those that demand ONLY BEVs are as harmful to the real progress we need in this country as those that refuse to allow electrification. If you're not in either group, then you're not part of the problem. Those that are, however, still are even if you don't like it.

What many of us hate seeing is for the Fuel Cell industry guiding policy in CA and giving a disproportionate amount of funds to FCEVs.
This not only gives lousy return on investment, it slows the adoption of other alternatives.

Can you imagine how many CHAdeMO chargers 46 Million could buy?

Strawman. The money allocated was for ALL alt-fuel work - not JUST for BEV. Since not a single one of you can show me that the allocation of any money to H2 took away from ANY BEV project, it's completely irrelevant how many CHAdeMO chargers could be installed for any amount of money. If you want your money being used to install more DCQC then get on the phone, gather a group, and make it happen! But if you do not and the state's fuel cell supporters do, then who's really to blame?

THIRD AND FINAL ATTEMPT: Can anyone at all show me documentation that even a single dollar of CA's alt-fuel support to H2 resulted in ANY loss of BEV support? Can ANYONE show us ANYTHING that supports Zythryn's boondoggle fear? Thanks in advance.

 

[downeykp]

I went to your link for fueling stations in TX. I also did a search, and the best that I can come up with is maybe 1 fueling station at the Univ. of TX at Austin. There is only 1. How could you go across the whole state of Texas with 1 filling station? Am I missing something?

 

[Zythryn]

...
Houston, TX - H2 refueling stations - 2008. Read it and weep, sweetheart.
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/blog...ydrogen-fueling-station-in-texas-to-be-built/

According to Martin Schuermann, CEO of Vision Industries, “We are very happy and excited about the decision by TERP to support this first, large-scale commercial hydrogen fueling station in the world. It will support a fleet of 20 Hydrogen Class 8 trucks initially. However, since hydrogen is supplied through a pipeline, this station could ultimately supply hydrogen for up to 1,000 trucks.”

With an H2 fueling station in Houston, TX, Vision Industries can now expand their operations to other shipping ports in the southern states of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida. Although the next apple of their eye may be the Big Apple, New York City on the eastern seaboard.

Andy, you certainly could not drive throughout the state of Texas in a FCEV.
The hydrogen stations in Texas are all private. Most for warehouse equipment (forklifts) and the Vision Inc is for class 8 Trucks. Both of which are good uses for hydrogen, but I don't believe the owners of either would allow the public to refuel there.

As for Vision Inc, that may have been a poor eqample. They declared bankruptcy in September.

http://blogs.wsj.com/bankruptcy/2014/09/29/vision-industries-has-ties-to-really-cool-people/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(Tony, sorry if I took your softball on that one)


As for the distribution of CARB funds, why in the world do you think if the money was not spent on h2 it wouldn't have been spent elsewhere?

 

[AndyH]

I went to your link for fueling stations in TX. I also did a search, and the best that I can come up with is maybe 1 fueling station at the Univ. of TX at Austin. There is only 1. How could you go across the whole state of Texas with 1 filling station? Am I missing something?

Yes, but not your fault. The alt-fuel search sites are worse for H2 and CNG than they are for BEV. Also, most of the Texas sites are private as they're supporting either commercial fleet vehicles, warehouses, test labs, universities, or municipal vehicles. The UT-A site is the first and I think only 'public' station so far. Many of the commercial stations are accessible with a fleet mag-strip card and they're often available to the public (think Fuel-Man and the like).

 

[AndyH]

...
Houston, TX - H2 refueling stations - 2008. Read it and weep, sweetheart.
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/blog...ydrogen-fueling-station-in-texas-to-be-built/

According to Martin Schuermann, CEO of Vision Industries, “We are very happy and excited about the decision by TERP to support this first, large-scale commercial hydrogen fueling station in the world. It will support a fleet of 20 Hydrogen Class 8 trucks initially. However, since hydrogen is supplied through a pipeline, this station could ultimately supply hydrogen for up to 1,000 trucks.”

With an H2 fueling station in Houston, TX, Vision Industries can now expand their operations to other shipping ports in the southern states of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida. Although the next apple of their eye may be the Big Apple, New York City on the eastern seaboard.

Andy, you certainly could not drive throughout the state of Texas in a FCEV.
The hydrogen stations in Texas are all private. Most for warehouse equipment (forklifts) and the Vision Inc is for class 8 Trucks. Both of which are good uses for hydrogen, but I don't believe the owners of either would allow the public to refuel there.

As for Vision Inc, that may have been a poor eqample. They declared bankruptcy in September.

http://blogs.wsj.com/bankruptcy/2014/09/29/vision-industries-has-ties-to-really-cool-people/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(Tony, sorry if I took your softball on that one)

We've already talked about Vision - just a few pages up (I think I responded to LTLFT). They're in chapter 11 reorganization, not liquidation. The vehicles and fueling infrastructure are unaffected.

And yes, as stated this third time, I can cover the state with a FCEV Tucson and existing fuel infrastructure. Yes, most is 'private' but one can get a commercial fueling card to use many of them.

The environment here with a lot of the CNG and H2 'non-public' infrastructre here is very similar to initial BEV recharging - drive up, let the guys ooh and ahh over the toy, get the refill, and carry on.

Let me make clear - I am not in the market for any vehicle much less another electric. I'm also not connected in any way with either BEVs or H2 other than owning and operating a BEV. And I certainly don't care which of the current non-fossil fuel tech is the dominant tech in 2050 as long as we stop pulling dead dinosaurs out of the ground.

As for the distribution of CARB funds, why in the world do you think if the money was not spent on h2 it wouldn't have been spent elsewhere?

Red herring. Did the state stop feeding the alt-fuel fund? Is is empty? Is there a requirement that no BEV funds can be spent until H2 money is spent (which in itself is BS because it appears to be the same pot of money). So - I'll ask again because I want you guys to put up or shut up :

FOURTH ATTEMPT: Can anyone at all show me documentation that even a single dollar of CA's alt-fuel support to H2 resulted in ANY loss of BEV support? Can ANYONE show us ANYTHING that supports Zythryn's boondoggle fear? Thanks in advance.

edit...typos marked

 

[TonyWilliams]

Andy, nobody will ever find any document stating that money was pulled from EV infrastructure and spent on H2. That's not the way it works.

That fact likely means something completely different to you than to the rest of us.

 

[mbender]

FOURTH ATTEMPT: Can anyone at all show me documentation that even a single dollar of CA's alt-fuel support to H2 resulted in ANY loss of BEV support? Can ANYONE show us ANYTHING that supports Zythryn's boondoggle fear? Thanks in advance. *

Now, even though I agree with what Tony said just above, I'll dare to step into this minefield :shock: and risk responding to the challenge.

First, it is important to note that CARB, some of its board members (e.g., Daniel Sperling) and, I believe, even the long-time chairwoman Mary Nichols herself are fond of saying that they do not and should not "pick winners" when it comes to alternative fuel rules and incentives. Heck, even the Governator ('s speechwriter) himself borrowed the language a few years back. Yet, I think that the evidence shows otherwise -- i.e., that through funding, restrictions, and prioritizing, they are effectively "picking winners" (or, more accurately, playing favorites) after all.

Two examples:

1. The latest revision of ZEV regulations and credits favors FCVs over pure BEVs by placing more value on very quick charging than the convenience and ability to charge at home (or, more generally, nearly anywhere, on an existing infrastructure). After all, as someone else here has said, the human time spent charging at home is trivial, measured in seconds. And the time spent refueling FCVs does not include the (human) time it takes to get to the station and back. This recent Car and Driver piece gives a good overview of the situation and touches on some of CARB's H2 bias.
   
   
2. Second, when the state is spending tens of millions of dollars establishing an infrastructure of H2 stations, then if it really is technology neutral and "doesn't pick winners", it should then spend an equal amount on:
   
   • quick chargers, battery research (via university grants, perhaps) and/or 'promotion' for pure BEVs
   • research, production and/or infrastructure of biofuels, be they cellulosic ethanol, algal biodiesel, "helioculture", or what-have-you
   • (and perhaps even) research into compressed air(?), fly-wheels(?!) or any other alternative technology that meets their criteria.
   
   But all evidence shows that they are not -- not neutral, and not equally "generous".

Now, this may not all add up to legal/documented/acceptable PROOF that over-funding for H2 takes money away from BEV support and growth, but it surely is 'circumstantial', commonsense, or -- one might even say -- "Zythryn" proof: If H2 infrastructure is getting a large majority of the "alt-fuel/vehicle funding pie", the other players are indeed (consequently) losing money because H2 is getting more than its share.


And finally, I now feel compelled to throw in my own disclaimer: that "we" are not anti-hydrogen in all circumstances and vehicles. We just:

• don't think it is appropriate in light-duty/passenger vehicles
• don't think it could compete "in that space" in a fair marketplace
• have concerns about the near-term source(s) of hydrogen
• think it is inefficient and unnecessary (for light duty vehicles)
• feel that it is receiving disproportionate amount of state funding and promotion, and
• question some manufacturers' focus on it to the exclusion (and near animosity of) pure battery electrics.

* NB: Size of quoted passage edited/reduced by this author to protect some readers' ears ;-)

 

[donald]

FOURTH ATTEMPT: Can anyone at all show me documentation that even a single dollar of CA's alt-fuel support to H2 resulted in ANY loss of BEV support? Can ANYONE show us ANYTHING that supports Zythryn's boondoggle fear? Thanks in advance.

Sure. From the Govenor's Budget:

Low Carbon Transportation: $200 million for the Air Board to accelerate the transition to low carbon freight and passenger transportation, with a priority for disadvantaged communities. The Air Board administers existing programs that provide rebates for zero-emission cars and vouchers for hybrid and zero-emission trucks and buses. This proposal will respond to increasing demand for these incentives, as well as provide incentives for the pre-commercial demonstration of advanced freight technology to move cargo in California, which will benefit communities near freight hubs.

So if it is a finite budget, then how much isn't going to BEV when it is going to H2?

It stands to reason that if the board has a fixed budget that it will use it. 'No H2' would mean 'more for everything else'.

CHBC Elects 2014 Board Members

Linde and Air Liquide representatives re-elected to Board, joined by Hydrogenics CEO

Los Angeles, CA - February 13, 2014 - Today, the California Hydrogen Business Council (CHBC) announced the appointment of Daryl Wilson, CEO of Hydrogenics to the Board and election of two members. At its December 11, 2013 Board Meeting in Diamond Bar, CA, Michael Beckman, Vice President at Linde and Bob Oesterreich, Director at Air Liquide were re-elected to the Board.

"Hydrogenics has determined that California is a key market, and the CHBC is an important organization that helps us build the right business environment for our products," said Daryl Wilson. "Our Power-to-Gas solution for storing excess renewable energy has led us to join the CHBC and support their California Summit in Sacramento in October, and now prompted me to become involved in its leadership."

"Linde and Air Liquide, as major industrial gas companies, are leaders in the expansion of hydrogen fueling in California", said Mark Abramowitz, President of the CHBC. "Bob and Mike will help the CHBC to navigate the road California is embarking upon toward zero emission transportation and emissions reduction from stationary sources."

No conflict of interest there, then. :roll:

 

[donald]

FOURTH ATTEMPT: Can anyone at all show me documentation that even a single dollar of CA's alt-fuel support to H2 resulted in ANY loss of BEV support? Can ANYONE show us ANYTHING that supports Zythryn's boondoggle fear? Thanks in advance.

Would this fit your criteria?:-

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1091354_california-hands-loss-to-tesla-in-proposed-zev-credit-changes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

California Hands Loss To Tesla In Proposed ZEV Credit Changes

It was one of the thorniest issues facing the powerful California Air Resource Board: Did the ability to swap electric-car battery packs qualify for "fast fueling" incentives meant to prod carmakers to build zero-emission vehicles that could add 300 miles of range in no more time than filling the tank of a gasoline car?

Last October, CARB kicked the can down the road, saying it might take a year to decide on the question.
Now the answer has come down, and it has winners and losers.

The big loser is Tesla Motors, the electric-car maker that demonstrated battery swapping for its Model S luxury sedan last June, but never provided further details or explained in detail how its swapping system would work.

The winners, on the other hand, are Honda, Hyundai, and Toyota, all of which will qualify for the incentives--via the small numbers of hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles they've said they will sell in those California markets where hydrogen-fueling infrastructure exists.

So, if the question was up in the air, then it could have fallen either way. But they made an active decision - favour FCEVs.

Basically, they changed the rules in favour of FCEVs, after the most forward pushing BEV company in the world met their targets. That money would have gone into the development of new Tesla models. Unfortunately, the biased membership of the board put pay to that. That's another tick in the box and step up the ladder for the kleptocrats and their dastardly plans.

It's weird. You'd imagine that they'd try to favour local, world class industry to stay world class, rather than specifically bias against it in favour of manufacturers from countries that dragged them into wars, within living memory. Maybe it is not 'politically correct' to say that. Maybe the whole thing is just about politics. Yer think!?? :roll: Sigh! There I go again!

 

[GregH]

+1 Donald..
Money is finite (unless you're Alan Greenspan)
Maybe instead of H2 stations (or other DCQC for that matter), California should stop hiking rates at the University of California.
Everyone has a priority and there's only so much to go around. Given the outrageous cost of H2 stations I'd say that lands on the frivolous side the scale right now. But that's just me.

 

[AndyH]

+1 Donald..
Money is finite (unless you're Alan Greenspan)

GregH - actually, money is not finite. If you don't agree with me, please connect with Robert Kiyosaki and/or the other authors that write under the 'rich dad' umbrella, and connect with any of the sources that explain how fractional reserve banking works. I recommend The Crash Course for this as the author is both scientist and financial analyst and does a masterful job connecting a number of fields. Bottom line: 'money' is an abstract agreement of value. While the mass of gold or silver on the planet appears to be finite, 'money' is not.

Which is better: To be alive on a planet capable of supporting life but have a larger national debt, or have a zero debt balance and be floating away into the next life from a planet that can no longer support humans? Because that's the real problem we're talking about - that's the high-speed truck we're on - and that wall up ahead is not a Hollywood set...

Maybe instead of H2 stations (or other DCQC for that matter), California should stop hiking rates at the University of California.

Would you care to help us understand how UC tuition rates are connected with deployment of alt refueling infrastructure? :shock: If you can connect those dots, I'll start digging into UTSA projects and see if their ugly rate increases are tied to a shadow H2 infrastructure...

Everyone has a priority and there's only so much to go around. Given the outrageous cost of H2 stations I'd say that lands on the frivolous side the scale right now. But that's just me.

Based on inputs to this thread, I don't think it's just you. I still think that the 'against' arguments here are accepting non-limits as limits while ignoring the real hard-limits. That all but guarantees a morphine-filled evening in future when we scrape our faces off the inside of the windshield.

 

[donald]

+1 Donald..
Money is finite (unless you're Alan Greenspan)

GregH - actually, money is not finite. If you don't agree with me, please connect with Robert Kiyosaki and/or the other authors that write under the 'rich dad' umbrella, and connect with any of the sources that explain how fractional reserve banking works. I recommend The Crash Course for this as the author is both scientist and financial analyst and does a masterful job connecting a number of fields. Bottom line: 'money' is an abstract agreement of value. While the mass of gold or silver on the planet appears to be finite, 'money' is not.

That's such a distraction and obfuscation to the meaning put forward. You might be right, in a philosophical sense, but it is so totally irrelevant to the point, and you must know that, that it is some silly argumentative ploy.

If you struggle with understanding that 'money' is finite, then try to understand that BUDGETS are most definitely finite, and if you don't believe THAT then your perception of reality is truly compromised.

I'd like to understand if you'd accept that the Tesla example I gave is a case of taking money away from BEVs in favour of FCEVs.

 

[AndyH]

Mike, I appreciate your response. Thanks for taking the time.

For you and the others that have weighed in: The view appears to be that the renewable fuel infrastructure funds are limited and this that any money spend on H2 is taking electrons away from BEVs.

- In order to support that, one would have to show us that the alt fueling account is no longer being fed from collected taxes. Has that happened?
- Additionally, for the H2 infrastructure to be negatively harming BEV infrastructure, we'd either need to see some indication that BEV infrastructure has been reduced, or we'd need to see that the alt fuel fund account balance is down to close to zero.

Does any of that exist?

Thanks in advance.

I'm not at all bothered by the 'pick winners' language - that's politically-charged BS. The extreme political right has been using that as an 'attack phrase' for years because they prefer 'corporate socialism' to focusing on the 'little people.' CARB and the CA political structure exists to make decisions to improve conditions in their 'area of responsibility' - their job is to 'pick winners' to the best of their ability. Of COURSE there are temporarily larger incentives for FCEV - CA wants to break the 'chicken and egg' cycle and get things moving. They did the same thing for BEV - and the 'addition' of FCEV incentives didn't reduce incentives for BEV. Again - we need both. There is no battle between BEV and FCEV in the real world.

As to the 'appropriateness' of FCEV: Isn't standing on the roof of one's BEV while working to damage FCEV picking 'winners and losers'?

Finally... Of course I see things differently than some in this thread - that's why I came here! I've spent the past 10 years trying to find ways to live my life 100% without fossil fuels and with an overall carbon-negative footprint. In the course of that work, I've learned things that I did not see reflected in this conversation and wanted to bring a different view (with documentation and sources! :lol: ) because I hoped it would ease the minds of folks here at least as much as it's helped me see some hope. Clearly hope is not as useful to some as the security of holding on to their belief system. Not surprising, I guess, since we're talking about humans here, but I wish this was a human foible that could be more easily adjusted.

 

[GregH]

Nissan was able to get the ball rolling on DCQC infrastructure by installing chargers at their dealerships.
Many dealerships are right off the freeway and thus great places for quick refueling...

Perhaps if Toyota believes in the Mirai the way Nissan believes in the Leaf, they could spend the money and real estate at some of their upscale dealerships to install H2 stations.