GM says Fuel Cell cost coming down

Except that you can try asking to use someone's outlet in case of dire need. Even if somebody said yes to your using their natural gas for your CNG car in the same situation, there is no way of getting the NG into your car.

Here is a more reflective of reality example with home refueling. Every BEV will need an EVSE installed at the owner's home to be practicable. These were up to $2000 in the beginning. Now they can be had for under $600. The only operating cost after that is measured in the charging losses. The Phil on the other hand, cost $5000, and then required an annual service that ran about $1000. Plus it also used electricity to run.

There are variable installation costs for both systems which can get crazy depending on specifics. However, virtually all homes in the continental US already have electric service. Not all homes NG service. On top of needing NG service, the cars need clean and dry gas. Which ended up not being the case for most homes. Honda had stopped recommending home refilling, and even wouldn't cover the fuel system under warranty of cars using home refilling.

In the end, CNG cars needed stations to have a chance.

Home hydrogen filling will be more expensive than the Phil. The hydrogen will need to be made and stored. Hydrogen requires more expensive materials. The compressors with need to be more powerful.

No, it's a stupid or nefarious move.

CARB deemed that fast refueling will make the public acceptance of alternate fueled vehicles easier. Just having it available lowers that acceptance barrier regardless of whether or not it is used. Which was the entire point of offering those extra ZEV credits. By changing tact, and now requiring the fast refueling method to also be used stifles innovation among the technologies that offer a choice between refueling spaeds and types, and supports the status quo, non-disruptive, model of central refueling stations

So CARB is stupid for removing an incentive for something they said is required for success, or they are nefarious for supporting a model that favors its friends and picking a winner not based upon its success.

Let's say home hydrogen refueling was possible and affordable. This would expand the pool of potential customers for FCEVs. So we end up with more FCEVs sold, but less using the hydrogen stations. Would you petition CARB to remove the fast refueling credits because of low use of the stations?

These two statements contradict each other. If the two should get equal support, why take the fast refuel time credit away from one and not the other?

PS: I believe hydrogen will lose funds if it had to only use the amount plug in infrastructure got.

Neither incentive had a criteria on who deserved it. Yes, wealthier people are more able to take advantage of the incentives for plug ins, but that was also true of the hybrid ones. I've never heard of the tax credit helping a poor person into a Prius.

If the entitlement is about the carbon intensity of the grid, the plug ins bought early on, and still on the road. They weren't crushed, so they are now 'cleaner', and they were 'cleaner' than most cars bought during that time.

Hybrids got incentives since they first went on sale in Japan, and they benefited form various incentive types for more than 2 to 3 years in the US, and they will get a push from rising CAFE. I wouldn't be opposed to a new round at this time though, but make it technology neutral. If the goal is fuel efficiency/carbon emission reduction, pick a MPG floor with higher incentives the better a car exceeds it, open to all non-plug in cars.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

We know that you would have given the volt zero, even though UCS say with 2012 emissions it is lower ghg than the prius in many states.

Are you saying taxpayers from those states should not beable to get the tax credit, because you have decided that their grid is too dirty? What if the volt made it this year? Next year? The grid is getting cleaner. Do we have to wait? What if you install grid tied wind or solar like california is doing to lower ghg from hydrogen.

As I said lowest ghg car in california is the i3, not the prius. Why shouldn't the mirai have to compete with it for deserving. Is it because its not a toyota?
EV Emissions Tool | Union of Concerned Scientists
I get 101 g co2/mile on my old palo alto zip
186 for the gen I volt
150 for the gen II volt
I'm thinking we will have to wait until 2017 to get a read on the hydrogen highway to see how much gets pumped as renewable and how much diesel is used to transport, but it should be just a little more than the 2016 volt

Mirai is likely to be worse than the the volt in california.
Perhaps a different state is more deserving. Just don't make it texas.

Why do fuel cells deserve more than
$5000 + 9zev credits plus $20M/year fueling + $100M R&D and commerialization from the DOE.

Why does it deserve even more the $8000 federal proposed tax credit, Additional fueling as $20M/year doesn't appear enough according to CARB. It emiits more ghg than a volt in california. Shouldn't it have to at least beat the volt, let alone the i3 before it gets even more? Your terms.

Volt does bad in iniana. 273 g/mi. That is where Mary Nichols said fcv would be cleaner. Why not test them there. THat is sarcasm, no one would buy them in Indiana. Time to test teh fcv, not pretend it is more deserving and needs even more money.

 

All I am saying is, if a "green plugin car" emits more than a regular hybrid, we should not encourage it by giving out $7,500.

Reward only if it benefits society. I don't care how the law is written. It is government's job to write laws effectively. It is pretty obvious now fron UCS reports that plugin incentive was poorly written and not effective and singlely targeted toward one tech.

I though you've seen this.

 

Yes I've heard you complaining for years. You want to take it away. Not arguing that now. I'm arguing that now the i3 is the top of the low ghg heap, not the prius. Why not compare teh mirai there. It has a much highr carbon footprint in california. Why does it deserve more money and credits? It pollutes more your langage. I'm simply asking you to be consistant.

Why no I haven't, but it obviously does not have the new 2012 figures in california and is not using the 2016 volt The gen I is a little higher than the mirai, the gen II is lower when you use the more recent figures. You can see the leaf sitting lower in ghg,gen II volt with 2012 electricity would be between the mirai and the ford focus ev, the i3 lower still. Then again No one knows what the ghg of hydrogen in califoarnia is yet, they are guessing based on make up of future stations being much lower than the 12 existing today.

 

Fueleconomy.gov already takes the expected gas engine use into account in its upstream CO2 emissions estimates. The 2016 Volt got 220g per mile on US average electricity plus gasoline. PiP was same and 2015 Prius was 218. The Volt is something around 205 on EV alone (my estimate based on fueleconomy.gov figures).

The 2016 Prius should come in about 209-210. I heard that there are new grid emissions numbers just out that are about 8% lower CO2 than the previous numbers presumably due to falling coal use. I have not had time to verify that claim. Assuming it is true, the revised 2016 Volt EV number on US average grid will fall to around 190 grams and I suppose that will drag the combined EV plus gasoline number down around the 2016 Prius level although I haven't crunched the numbers and that is just a guess.

Lots of unverified speculation there but the general drift is surely right

 

Actually, it looks like it was well done.
From the UCS data, it looks like PEVs emitted less greenhouse gases, for more than 50% of the population, about 9 months into 2011.
In 2010, PEVs already emitted less GHGs in a number of states.
December of 2010 was when the Leaf and Volt came out. They went nationwide in 1sr quarter of 2011.
Tesla came on the scene in 2012.

During all this time, the average PEV emitted less GHGs than the Prius.
That was your concern, wasn't it?

 

I agree with the assessment.

So, Prius deserve incentive as well. Either that or lower or eliminate incentive to Volt for the same emission level. That is tge only way to level the playing field.

The the other 50% does not deserve incentive. Ideally, it should be viable amount.

 

In the first half of your post you propose a canceling of the entire incentive for the Volt.

Then in the second you propose only a partial incentive, only available for clean states??

Why not leave the Volt incentive in place for places with a cleaner grid than CA?

Should you give the incentive to people once the grid in their area gets cleaner, since the car they bought a year or two ago are now cleaner than a Prius?

Should we have separate incentives for benefits of national security, national fiscal health, local pollution?


This is largely rhetorical as the incentives are not based on GHG emissions.

 

I followed up on that chart when it was published in August. The Mirai entry assumes 46% hydrogen from renewable sources even though the state only mandates 33% and nationally 95% of commercially produced H2 is from methane. Also, the Volt is a 2015 model.

 

No, I want to eliminate the excess public funding this not-ready-for-primetime boondoggle requires (or, at the very least, make it equitable with EV spendig).

Yes, just like the corrupted CARB is doing with H2 and FCEVs.

 

And you think building out a nationwide H2 network will be more affordable? lol

 

You clearly haven't actually read what I've been posting. There was no comment related to being affordable. It's taking everything affected into account.

For quite awhile now, I've been saying that individuals, landlords, and private business owners aren't going to foot the bill. The large industries with something to lose will. They'll want in on the new fuel as oil demand falls.

Think about how much easier it will be for those big players to setup that infrastructure, already having land, labor, and expertise available.

The goal is to establish something sustainable that's clean. It doesn't necessarily have to be the most efficient or the lowest cost. Balance is more important.

 

Have to agree with you there. A certain main battle tank has a turbine engine - not very popular in the mainstream auto industry
Fuel Cells on the International Space Station (not military but still government funded) for backup electrical generation - again not very popular as a backup in the industry.
V-22 Osprey - not very much of a need for tilt rotors in the commercial world.
LAV-25 - I know SUVs, Vans and Buses are getting big but I haven't seen any with 8 wheels.
And then there's the amphibious vehicles. I actually saw an amphibious car once - the infamous amphicar. Not quite on the same popularity list as the Prius. I think it was made in the same numbers as the Mirai.

 

How often do I need to repeat CO-EXIST for that to become apparent?

There won't be one solution for all.