PiP sales seem to be really lagging the Volt and Leaf

Nope, I really don't care which companies get more money.
What I find so outrageous is the government spending 10s of millions of dollars to build out infrastructure that doesn't meet its own goals, and will need 100s of Millions to be effective in just the state of California.

Tesla, and any other manufacturer that would like to join them, pays for the infrastructure to allow convenient, long distance travel out of the sales of their product. The majority of electric infrastructure already exists.

The guy in CA that doesn't own a car is helping build infrastructure for FCVs. The people paying for Superchargers are Tesla owners. Seems much more fair to me.

 

They don't sell Pips here.
They DO sell Volts and Leaves.

I can charge on both ends of my commute (with permission) but unless my commute grows to >10 miles I can't cost justify buying anything right now.

 

The same could be said for $7,500 plugin tax credit for Volt that emits more emission than the no plug 50 MPG Prius.

Ditto for tax payer funded highway system.

There was no uproar about it then. Why place it at FCV now?

 

Conveniently left out is any economic considerations of the cost involved. If the FCHV is triple the cost of an EV that is left out. The cost of the infrastructure is left out. What is left in is the source fuel of Nat Gas. So local solar EVs are left out. Pick any technology for anything and I can make up a chart of how great it is. How I frame the discussion and control the assumptions is all I need. I can fool nearly everyone (especially politicians!) but I will never, ever fool the market or the environment.

The core point is not about the advantages of FCV not existing. It is how political power is being perverted to ensure one technology is given a disproportional advantage using the logic of "this is the best technology" as decided based on political considerations.

 

All of those "myths" aside (I would disagree with that characterization of many of those concerns, and I'm not alone), FCVs do incorporate highly pressurized tanks that when punctured or compromised will result in explosions that would make a gas explosion look like child's play.

 

First, the tanks are bullet proof. Even if it is punctured and caught on fire, it looks like this vs. a gas car.

Hydrogen Car Fire Surprise : EVWORLD.COM

 

With all the regulations and liability concerns, there's no way one without intense testing would be allowed on the road.

There's a heightened attention to that in the industry too. Think lithium...

 

For renewables, EV is a better use rather than using that electricity to convert to hydrogen.

For natural gas, FCV is better especially with tri-generators so you get H2, home heating and electricity altogether.

Renewables need a storage and H2 is a good choice. Both are important so I am dumbfounded why some are anally against it.

EV funds are not cut and routed to H2 like what happened to H2 when Dr. Steven Chu took office.

A third of our electricity is from natural gas, another third from coal. Nuclear and renewables makes up the rest. Renewables are still in single digit tge last time I checked.

It is good to associate EV with solar but in reality, there isn't many and most of them are connected to the grid and the average should be used.

 

It boggles my mind how people don't think things through, like expecting the wind to always blow and the sun always shine. You have to collect the energy when it's available, then store it. Massive banks of batteries just plain are not realistic. And of course, the oil industry needs something to do as the flow of oil ramps down. Letting them handle the H2 would be a reasonable tradeoff.

 

(Warning-This is humor, not too serious)

And here I am expecting nuclear plants not to be destroyed, coal ash piles not to spill, and utility power never to go out.

And as far as I know, the sun does always shine.

 

I don't have national renewable electricity data at hand right now but the big utilities in California are already generating 20% of their power using renewable sources (and that doesn't include large hydropower which is another 9+ percent). The law in CA requires 33% by 2020.

I see no reason why many other parts of the country can't achieve similar goals over time. Quite a few other states already have "Renewable Portfolio Standards" with increasing targets required by law or utility regulations.

See:
Renewable (Electricity) Portfolio Standards by States | PriusChat

 

I've seen that photo before. It is hardly a conclusive study on all the ways a hydrogen tank can be compromised. Assuming all the safety concerns are addressed (a hydrogen station on every street corner, no thanks), it's ridiculous to spend public monies on this boondoggle that requires an altogether new infrastructure, especially when the municipalities on up to the Feds are drowning in debt. The $50 refills from the onset, the 10-minute refill times (best case scenario), the real safety concerns (the hydrogen explosive energy potential being orders of magnitudes greater), the lower than BEV wheel to well efficiency, etc.

 

Let's not forget act of refueling.

As much as we'd like to dream of a time when all parking spots provide the ability to recharge, that just plain is not realistic... not by a long shot.

It's sad to think of all of those apartment & condo dwellers who are at the mercy of landlord simply not interested or financially able to retrofit their property to support that. There's an obvious expense & effort for those owning a home too. It sometimes isn't logistically possible either.

With H2, that population has a solution available.

 

I can remember when early cell phones were considered exclusive items for certain occupations. That would be considered a joke now. Likewise every home having an internet connection was considered way out there. You cannot build any dwelling today without that being as routine as water and sewer connections.

What makes providing a electric outlet (not a charge station) where people would use them such an impossibility. As far as I know it is entirely an economic issue not a technology issue. Here and now there is a limitation...but one instantly solved once the economic winds change. They will change.

 

Change is inevitable... but painfully slow... especially when it requires updates to existing infrastructure never intended to support upgrades.

We'll get there... after finally getting past the barriers keeping people holding dearly onto traditional transportation technology.