Why America Must Build the Car That Overtakes a Tesla

ROFL
I remember some people making that very argument.

 

So do you hold the same for FCV?
That they should not be sold unless their emissions are less that hybrids? And, when you say "hybrids", would I be correct that you really mean the standard Prius?

 

Interesting article.
I liked this part...

So while you pick an arbitrary efficiency level (of a Prius) and believe no EV should be sold in areas where the carbon emissions are more than your arbitrary number.

Yet I have never heard one word from you of disallowing sales of less efficient vehicles?
Why not recognized that the Prius is basically replacing other efficient (30-40mpg) cars while electrics are replacing a larger percentage of low efficient vehicles.

It makes no sense to not sell an EV in a market where the EV emits more than a Prius, if the EV would be replacing a 19mpg sports car, and the buyer won't buy a Prius.

If the buyers only choices were a Prius or an EV, I might even agree with you.
But very few people are choosing hybrids, and that number is no longer growing, and hasn't been for years.

 

And how many more years should states' taxpayers be forced to subsidize hydrogen if/as it continues to be shown, to be unaffordable due to being no cleaner than the other fossil fuels currently being used - and unaffordable due to low efficiency of electrolysis compared to how much further equal amounts of electricity can propel plugin's .... 10yrs? - 20yrs? - 50yrs? -
..... or do we just keep on wasting valuable resources .... until (like Russia in Afghanistan) we financially collapse. How much longer do we keep trying to help Japan come up with a better system for the cars they build. If only we could create that date, we could all certainly more easily live with this attempt ... even though battery tech (for both transportation storage) is proving to be cheaper.

 

Do we have mirai ghg scores for california? A best case SMR should be about 188 g CO2/mile before transportation costs. That puts all 6 of the temporary stations at all toyota dealers mobile refulers much higher as they need to burn diesel to refuel them after only 147kg. Following your rule make toyota not put these into operation, and delay shipments of the cars until some lower ghg alternative was built. Of the other 12 (6 commercial, 6 demo) perhaps 5 would meet your requirement. My guess is the 13 higher ghg h2 stations will pump a lot more hydrogen than the other 5. Your rule. write to toyota. Get us a figure on whether their mobil fillers use 250 or 500 g CO2/mile mirai. We won't know unless they keep track of the diesel used to drive them back and forth and the leakage in production and fueling.

I don't understand the silly rule. Wouldn't it be better to see if people want the cars, and then figure out how much it costs to make them produce less ghg than a prius. Is the prius really the right level? How about less ghg than a tesla driven on the california grid? Take away zev credits for the extra ghg ;-)

And yes that is my reasoning with national roll out of plug-ins. They overwelmingly are lower than the prius in ghg in the nation. Those that are higher, well we should inform the owners and let them produce more ghg or go renewable. With h2 you don't really have a choice, as there is only going to be one station within that magic 6 minutes of your drive.

 

Then you can't give the mirai incentives. Most of the stations built will make it emit more than the prius.

I don't agree with your benchmark, but please share this opinion with toyota. Since most hydrogen refueling in california today will produce more ghg than a prius, you don't think they should ship them yet. Not until infastrucure is in place that only fuelis a mirai to produce less ghg than a prius. That may take a long time.

You will be happy to know the gen II volt, tesla mosel S, leaf, i3 all produce less ghg in california than the prius and the mirai.

Me, I would like them to continue the test and measure the ghg and customer satisfaction and sales. But if ghg is your religion, then fueling is too ghg intensive in california today to sell fcvs.

 

UCS is not using the actual stations they are projecting some future cleaner stations. If you think it uses today's 18 stations show me the report.

 

NREL survey of stations 2014. Is this the UCS you are using?

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2014/10/How-Clean-Are-Hydrogen-Fuel-Cells-Fact-Sheet.pdf
They are not using any actual stations which are less efficient.

By 2020 average grid electricity and hydrogen should decrease in carbon efficiency. If you need to disqualify grid tied reewables from plug-ins why use them for fcv? If you can't sell in a state where you might get 225 g/mile with a plug-in, why allow stations that produce over 250 g/mile.

Just try to use the same rules.

Looking at UCS, they are assuming 33% of hydrogen will be produce not only renewably but produce no ghg. Unflrtunately these renwable stations are taking longer to build than assumed. Toyota is adding 6 new mobile stations. These need to be towed long distances to be refueled, and this diesel adds to ghg.

I'm pefetly happy waiting and seeing which states have clean electricity in 2020 and if california actually hits its goal of 33% renewable and 86 stations in 2021. Until then california hydrogen has a much higher carbon footprint than the projected infrastructure UCS uses for its future pollution.

SHow me something that says these stations are much more efficient than NREL said they were 2 years ago, or agree the mirai faills your prius test today.

 

USB, the UCS study obviously did not use the trucked, mobile stations Toyota is rolling out now.
So, would I be correct, since GHG emissions seems to be your sole measuring stick, that you oppose these mobile H2 stations?

 

Excellent, it's nice when we can find common ground.
The only part I disagree with, considering the number of Mirai ready H2 stations, the mobile units are currently closer to the norm.

So, for the promise of future gains, you are willing to accept a higher GHG footprint in the present.

But yet, you accept slowing down the adoption of technologies that hold more promise, even though their current GHG emissions are better?
This is the disconnect I don't understand.

Don't get me wrong, I think both have a place in society. I just don't see why we don't speed up adoption of the cleaner tech.

 

"This guy gets it"

Uh, no, he doesn't. He spews the same crap, so USB agrees with him. BIG difference.