Why is California so Anti-Tesla and pro foreign auto makers?

[evnow]

CA is rabidly pro-hydrogen. I've yet to see it be anti-Tesla.

It is anti-Tesla because FVCs are the primary competitors EVs in terms of ZEV credits. So anything that favors one is necessary anti others.

But, this isn't an American vs foreign choice, it's a technology choice. CA's H2 love affair started when its primary proponents were American automakers. And it considers FCVs the holy grail over EVs even though the most aggressive EV company (and perhaps two, depending on BMW) are foreign.

However, CA has noted that it prioritizes supporting CA companies. Tesla is one, and been the beneficiary of that consideration. But at least for the moment, the US headquarters of all three of today's H2 cheerleaders are in California too.

It is politics - and in politics it is all about influence - not technology

Here is a devious thought. May be Tesla wants CARB to continue to push FCV so that they have less competition in the EV space (since FCVs will not be able to compete in open market with EVs anyway, according to Musk).

Otherwise all that Musk has to do - given the huge megaphone he wields - is to call CARB out for favouring foreign designed FCVs vs home-grown EVs and how that will adversely affect jobs in CA. I can see CARB backtracking ...

 

[evchels]

Too me, I just can't ever see hydrogen as being viable. Its a step back in environmental-wise from BEVs all for the convenience of filling up faster because us Americans are too lazy or too "on the go" to QC for 20 minutes. Granted hydrogen still has the range superiority, but I think that gap is rapidly closing in favor of BEVs. Hydrogen does have an automotive use, but not in personal vehicles. Its freight trucking - long haul. These long hauls count every minute and every hour - they only stop because they are required to rest, stopping extra for fuel just waste time and I don't think batteries (unless there is a huge breakthrough) would last a 8 or 12 hour driving period. But even then, most freight (~80%) is actually local and not cross country. So its a smaller market than you think.

Agreed. I've long believed that the market is the biggest challenge facing H2, more than the technology and economic hurdles.

Re px vehicles, the biggest market competition to FCVs will not likely be EVs, but decently-electrified PHEVs. The entire sales pitch of an FCV boils down to "long range, fast fueling", specifically meant to appeal to the idea that not everyone can (or believe they can) make a typical BEV work. But a Volt is also both of those things, today, without the infrastructure or cost hurdles of an FCV. And most Volt drivers use them as EVs the vast majority of the time, so the promise of H2 is to achieve ZEV status for the last 30% or so of mileage (and perhaps less with a 60/80-mile PHEV, etc.) I understand that CARB's priority is to get to 100% ZEV at any cost, but I don't think buyers will agree.

 

[evchels]

CA is rabidly pro-hydrogen. I've yet to see it be anti-Tesla.

It is anti-Tesla because FVCs are the primary competitors EVs in terms of ZEV credits. So anything that favors one is necessary anti others.

I don't think it's quite so binary as to say that CA is (currently) anti-EV, even if it likes H2 more. But even if, your premise would suggest that the state is anti-Nissan and BMW too, not just Tesla. And of the EV makers, CARB has given more consideration to Tesla than the others.

But, this isn't an American vs foreign choice, it's a technology choice. CA's H2 love affair started when its primary proponents were American automakers. And it considers FCVs the holy grail over EVs even though the most aggressive EV company (and perhaps two, depending on BMW) are foreign.

However, CA has noted that it prioritizes supporting CA companies. Tesla is one, and been the beneficiary of that consideration. But at least for the moment, the US headquarters of all three of today's H2 cheerleaders are in California too.

It is politics - and in politics it is all about influence - not technology [/quote]

Very much so. And my point is that Honda, Toyota, and Hyundai have influence in part because they are based in CA, not because they are foreign. Additionally, CARB has long had a seemingly emotional fondness for H2, regardless of who makes them. In that regard, they are favoring the technology, not the automaker (and certainly not that automaker's country of origin).

 

[evnow]

Very much so. And my point is that Honda, Toyota, and Hyundai have influence in part because they are based in CA, not because they are foreign. Additionally, CARB has long had a seemingly emotional fondness for H2, regardless of who makes them. In that regard, they are favoring the technology, not the automaker (and certainly not that automaker's country of origin).

What you say is all true - except that is not normally happens in politics - and that is the point of this thread.

Why is CARB favoring a technology that helps mostly foreign automakers while hurting a home grown one ? That is not how politics normally works. That "emotional fondness for H2" should have changed because of changed circumstances (Tesla becoming a major player + GM/Ford preferring plugins over FCV).

 

[DaveEV]

The Hyundai ix35 (Tucson) Fuel Cell (hydrogen) gets 65.4 miles per KG of hydrogen.

It's worse than that, it only gets 49 miles / kg (48 city/50 hwy)

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fcv_sbs.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[AndyH]

The Hyundai ix35 (Tucson) Fuel Cell (hydrogen) gets 65.4 miles per KG of hydrogen.

It's worse than that, it only gets 49 miles / kg (48 city/50 hwy)

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fcv_sbs.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yeah, that's pretty horrible. After all, the market is already saturated with 45+ MPG SUVs. :roll:

 

[DaveEV]

Yeah, that's pretty horrible. After all, the market is already saturated with 45+ MPG SUVs. :roll:

You're forgetting all the energy that goes into getting H2 into the tank of that FCEV. Gasoline is a lot easier to get into the tank of your SUV than H2.

 

[Nekota]

I'm expecting hydrogen vehicles to have two detractors -

First is the physics of hydrogen explosions are much more violent than gasoline which will make running into a hydrogen vehicle a safety concern. Hydrogen is combustible over the range of 4% to 90% with propagation velocities of 1000 to 2000 m/sec. What if hydrogen vehicles have a detonation warning sign placed on them? Would you tailgate a hydrogen vehicle?

Second is the convenience and availability of hydrogen will make it a time and distance compromise from the hydrogen station. How many miles will one drive to fuel up for 400 mile range? One of the surprising bonus factors of charging at home is the time it saves to for fueling. People are used to waiting to fill the fuel tanks but electric battery charging is more like the dell phone charger. Just plug it in and unplug the next morning.

 

[AndyH]

Yeah, that's pretty horrible. After all, the market is already saturated with 45+ MPG SUVs. :roll:

You're forgetting all the energy that goes into getting H2 into the tank of that FCEV. Gasoline is a lot easier to get into the tank of your SUV than H2.

No I'm not. I'm talking about the comment to which I replied. You and others that insist on bashing the tech start by omitting all the energy that went into making crude oil, then assign the refining process to another convenient stove-pipe. At least the EPA number has the integrity of drawing a circle around each vehicle in the same location.

The point about H2 today is that it's a complimentary EV tech that provides range, flexibility, and load-carrying capacity that current BEVs do not and cannot provide. If you think otherwise, update the price/performance/capability of the late 1990s Ranger and/or S10 (GM or Electricar) and configure it with 200 miles of range and the ability to carry 1000 lbs in racks/toolboxes/equipment (yes, 'and' - must do both).

In other words, consider the possibility that state regulators have a different goal than the typical Model S owner...

 

[GRA]

I'm expecting hydrogen vehicles to have two detractors -

First is the physics of hydrogen explosions are much more violent than gasoline which will make running into a hydrogen vehicle a safety concern. Hydrogen is combustible over the range of 4% to 90% with propagation velocities of 1000 to 2000 m/sec. What if hydrogen vehicles have a detonation warning sign placed on them? Would you tailgate a hydrogen vehicle?

Do you believe it's safe to tailgate ANY vehicle? Hey, maybe that's the answer to prevent idiots from tailgating me; I'll just install a sign reading "Explosive Hydrogen On-Board - Remain at least 400 feet Back for Safety". Of course, people still tailgate tanker trucks hauling gasoline, despite the Flammable Liquid 1203 warning placards, so I have my doubts about the effectiveness of this.

Second is the convenience and availability of hydrogen will make it a time and distance compromise from the hydrogen station. How many miles will one drive to fuel up for 400 mile range? One of the surprising bonus factors of charging at home is the time it saves to for fueling. People are used to waiting to fill the fuel tanks but electric battery charging is more like the dell phone charger. Just plug it in and unplug the next morning.

As to this, it's already been covered in the main H2 thread. The FCEV automakers are only selling/leasing the cars in areas within 6 minutes of an H2 station, pacing the rollout to the availability of the fueling infrastructure. Enroute and destination stations will be placed along popular routes in much the same locations as Tesla is putting their Superchargers, albeit the H2 stations have more flexibility in placement owing to the fact that they will employ point-of-sale billing, so no worries about freeloaders in big cities hogging the dispensers.

 

[mbender]

Just came across this interesting thread. It's amazing what can come to the surface months later (via newposts link) from the addition of one new comment! ;-)

Anywho, here's my 2 cents:

CA is rabidly pro-hydrogen. I've yet to see it be anti-Tesla.

I agree. After all, didn't the state give Tesla large incentives to buy the recently-closed NUMMI plant in Fremont?

SF Chronicle[/url]"]State and local officials, who had crafted tax incentives, including worker training provisions and an exemption from sales taxes for new factory equipment to preserve Nummi, were as happy about Thursday's announcement as they had been crestfallen seven weeks ago.

And didn't they bend over backwards (or forwards!) in their failed effort to land the gigafactory?

It is politics - and in politics it is all about influence - not technology

What I really want to know -- almost worthy of its own thread -- is why the "conservative right" is so anti-EV and anti-Tesla/Musk. There are plenty of good "conservative" arguments (energy independence, jobs, trade deficit, etc.) that should win conservatives over. Is it really all about the Koch brothers, the denier lobby and/or actual ignorance? Or is it because Obama once intimated, slightly, to a small media outlet in podunkville, that he sort of is pro [PH]EV?

It is as much about politics as it is the environment.

Bottom line, that we all might agree on, is that the political environment needs to be cleaned up (first), in order to expedite cleaning up the actual, physical/atmospheric environment!

 

[evnow]

CA is rabidly pro-hydrogen. I've yet to see it be anti-Tesla.

I agree. After all, didn't the state give Tesla large incentives to buy the recently-closed NUMMI plant in Fremont?

This is like saying the Washington state is rabidly pro-airbus. I've yet to see it be anti-Boeing.

In this case - where the 2 technologies are clearly competitors for the future - I expect a state to support local industries. If it supports a technology favored by outside (in this case foreign) companies - something is not right.

 

[mbender]

Now I'm beginning to come over more to "your" side evnow*, but the state did help Tesla with the NUMMI plant as described, and BEVs don't get NO credits (which would really, overtly be anti-Tesla and BEVs). So it's a mixed bag at best, but you're right that being so pro-H2 helps non-local, non-CA manufactures more than anything that is done (by the state) for homegrown Tesla.

For a second I thought that a pro-H2 stance might help out California's natural gas suppliers (for eventual hydrogen production), but I just learned that CA imports 90% of its natural gas!! That may change if fracking here moves forward :-\, but I doubt that's been playing into their calculations up to this point.

It's a shame and more than a bit mysterious and perplexing. I sure wish some staffer or even high level board member would "blow a whistle" -- i.e., write a tell-all and/or leak what's really going on behind all of the closed doors.

CA is rabidly pro-hydrogen. I've yet to see it be anti-Tesla.

I agree. After all, didn't the state give Tesla large incentives to buy the recently-closed NUMMI plant in Fremont?

This is like saying the Washington state is rabidly pro-airbus. I've yet to see it be anti-Boeing.

* I feel like GRA (or more accurately, J.M. Keynes), LOL.

 

[AndyH]

In this case - where the 2 technologies are clearly competitors for the future

This is the binary argument that I think is painfully wrong. They're not competitors - they're both electric transportation. The enemy is fossil fuel - not a "different kind if battery". One is killing us, one isn't.

I see a short-term blip in support in order to get a complimentary tech established. Once that happens, the state can re-balance and support the next step, whatever that turns out to be.

 

[ydnas7]

In this case - where the 2 technologies are clearly competitors for the future

This is the binary argument that I think is painfully wrong. They're not competitors - they're both electric transportation. The enemy is fossil fuel - not a "different kind if battery". One is killing us, one isn't.

I see a short-term blip in support in order to get a complimentary tech established. Once that happens, the state can re-balance and support the next step, whatever that turns out to be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeUPFM6XsIE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lexus claims plug-in hybrids and electric cars "actually hold you back"

It is clear that Toyota considers plug in vehicles as competitors
very clear

 

[AndyH]

In this case - where the 2 technologies are clearly competitors for the future

This is the binary argument that I think is painfully wrong. They're not competitors - they're both electric transportation. The enemy is fossil fuel - not a "different kind if battery". One is killing us, one isn't.

I see a short-term blip in support in order to get a complimentary tech established. Once that happens, the state can re-balance and support the next step, whatever that turns out to be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeUPFM6XsIE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lexus claims plug-in hybrids and electric cars "actually hold you back"

It is clear that Toyota considers plug in vehicles as competitors
very clear

It's really important to draw lines between various parts of the topic so that we can keep from getting confused or pulled off-track.

That's a commercial - advertising. Sales speak. The direct purpose of such a communication is to point the potential customer toward the product you want to sell them while making them uncomfortable about ANY other product that customer might be considering. The commercial did that very well.

That's just one data point, though, and does not give enough info to declare that we 'know' Toyota's intent. Have they stopped advertising the Prius? Have they stopped advertising their other non-hybrid, non-electric (ICE) vehicles? If we pull ALL of the company's advertising together, we'll find that they're marketing ALL of the vehicles in their stable. Look at the final message of that ad again: Their hybrid drive system is ready for ANY energy supply that might be available - electricity, hydrogen, biofuel, etc.

 

[JeremyW]

Never saw any sort of ad for the RAV4EV...

 

[cwerdna]

Never saw any sort of ad for the RAV4EV...

I've seen ads online for the Rav4 EV. I posted about it at http://www.myrav4ev.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2175&sid=21e6d2f962cc548c5f68df624925cb69#p2175" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

I don't think I've seen any on TV though. It's all now moot since it's discontinued.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Never saw any sort of ad for the RAV4EV...

I've seen ads online for the Rav4 EV. I posted about it at http://www.myrav4ev.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2175&sid=21e6d2f962cc548c5f68df624925cb69#p2175" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

I don't think I've seen any on TV though. It's all now moot since it's discontinued.

There is exactly one new one still for sale in Davis, California.

 

[AndyH]

CA is rabidly pro-hydrogen.

Do you know why? Does the state have a long-term plan, or have they been taken-over by the H2 industry, or? I wan to understand why they're pro-H2. Thanks!