Elon Musk knocks hydrogen, ruffles feathers

Reported today by Tesla:

 

This list is just a snapshot, where is Lincoln MKS, Bentley, Rolls Royce, Jaguar XJ, Acura RL, Cadillac CT6, Infiniti Q70, Hyundai Equus???

 

Who cares? Everyone seems to think that tesla will be hurt by gas prices and literally the opposite is happening.

This is in contrast to Prius sales, which peaked over two years ago and have fallen every year since. Why is that so hard to accept?

 

Those were chosen as a representative, well known group of large luxury sedans.
2015 Year End U.S. Passenger Car Sales Rankings - Top 160 Best-Selling Cars In America - Every Car Ranked - GOOD CAR BAD CAR has all the details you want for the top 160 cars sold in the U.S. in 2015

Lincoln MKS 6877, 8160. -15.7%
Jaguar XJ. 3611, 4329. -16.6%
Acura RLX 2195, 3413. -35.7%. *Acura RL didn't make the list
Cadillac CTS 19485, 31115. -37.4%
Infinity Q70. 8449, 5034. 67.8%. We have a winner!
Hyundai Eq. 2332, 3415 -31.7

So by expanding to include cars that aren't as closely matched, you found one other gainer.

Why can't you simply be happy that another company is doing well?

 

Tesla has been production constrained, mainly do to panasonic on the model S, then seat parts on the model X. These things get worked out and model S should be demand constrained this year. The model X still production constrained. Growth should be at least 53% with world wide sales projected to be 80,000 to 90,000. 2015 or 2016 may be peak for the model S. 2017 may see slower growth as only expensive trims of the model 3 will be produced, and model S sales will be declining. Growth should accelerate with the model 3 in 2018. Musk has stated that low gas prices may hurt especially model 3 sales. This may make it hard to reach 500,000 bevs in 2020. I always thought that number was high, but low gas prices make it seem really high, but who knows OPEC may reduce production or the US may add a tax before then.

In the context of the question will fcv hurt Tesla sales, that seems increasingly foolish. Toyota is only projecting 30,000 in sales in 2020, 12,000 of those in Japan where tesla is restrained from market share from soft trade barriers. 18,000 is nothing, and certainly won't hurt tesla sales even if toyota, honda, and hyundai reach their numbers, and all of them are not doing well compared to projections 2 years ago. In 2018 will the mirai suddenly look better versus a model 3, given the poor infrastructure the mirai will have in 2018 (california says infrastructure for only 11,000 fcv) versus nationwide super chargers for tesla, lower price, more luxury, better performance.

I think this should be on fcv and if they will hurt the plug-in market. The reduction of the hybrid market outside of japan is probably the topic of anouther thread. I really think if toyota works on pricing hybrids can grow again. IMHO in Japan the government shot its load with the incentives, it will be very expensive to do a new incentive to get hybrids back to old levels as most people that wanted one purchased one. The japanese government seems to be backing fcv for the 2020 olympics with its incentives now, and with negative interest rates and high debt I doubt they have an appetite for another round of hybrid incentives that would need to be higher than the last group. They will have to wait until 2018 for the new hybrids to age.

 

Tesla reports big Q4 loss, but shares rise on outlook

 

Yeah. more stupid links. great work. all the while Tesla moves forward, unlike a certain other company going backwards. hmmm. makes ya think.

 

$1000 deposit for the Model 3. That's got me more excited than the Prius IV (to say nothing of the Mirage).

Because Toyota!

 

That is not the only obstacle. If he waits for the presently owned Prius to expire, the new vehicle options by then might be flying cars.

The 2001 Prius I own is making the next car purchase a real game of PHEV/EV Roulette. It is sad to see the only car company reducing the present EV and PHEV choices is Toyota.

 

I think you did this in your mind, I certainly did not talk about car classes, nor do I belive that. There is no thing in carb specifying seats or passenger room. Certainly if you survey the i3 and volt are probably more desirable than the also 4 seat mirai. So if they re punishing for interanal size or number of sets why does the mirai get 9, the volt similar in internal size 0, and the model S much faster with optional jump seats going to 7 only 4 credits. No I didn't address it, because carb did. Size doesn't matter for the credits. I just think if a model S gets 4 and fast refueling important than the volt should get 1, and the mirai, the much less convient refueling and 4 seats why more than the model S that has all those superchargers accross the world?

Actually bevs came first. Different options for different uses and different battery prices. IF fast refueling is a priority, then you need to give something to phev. Obviously this is just an excuse at carb. A decade ago with the ovonics patents burried, the choice of hybrid was obvious. Now that lithium has gotten cheper, and no longer is encombered, phevs and bevs are groing fast, with hiccups for model revissions. 100 years from now I don't see why phevs won't still be around. Think product mix based on battery and fuel costs. If you can put in 20 kwh and an ice, versus 70 kwh, the ice is not a waste. Don't judge it as such and pretend people need to have a whole new car then again in the sharing economy, maybe a zip car model works for long trips and 30kwh is enough.

Hey i have no problem with the $1000 bonus, even though they probably go the same electric models and the leaf stays at home and a gas car used where the phev still works. My problem is at the 3 zev verus 0 versus 9 for a fcv. If the impact on the air in california is the same leaf + ice versus volt, which the surveys say is correct and fast refueling and not needing to buy anouther car is a good thing for the non rich, why give the credits to the leaf and not the volt. I'll tell you why. People in carb don't think people want bevs even with all the data to the contrary. If a mirai got 4 and a erev phev got 1 then people would understand clearly fcv giveaways aren't enough to clean the air very much. Those 3 zevs are worth a lot more than the $1000.


I hope you can explain how the mirai has more seats or more convient refueling than the volt. Otherwise you have to agree the bonus credits are all about carb trying to choose a winner, and nothing about what they claimed their goal was.

 

No one is calling for the Volt to get actual, sellable ZEV credits greater than the Leaf, which gets 3. Just for it to get 1. The Volt operates in EV mode for most of the time for people's commutes. There you have zero tail pipe emissions for most of the car's annual miles. But it does have an ICE, so it should not get the as many credits as a BEV. But a long range BEV that can totally replace an ICE car for most, like the Model S, is only worth 1 credit more than the Leaf. The range of the Leaf means the owner needs to use another car, which can be anything; a hybrid, a FSP SUV, or even a cheater TDI VW.

Since short range BEVs are penalized just 1 ZEV credit for keeping a back up ICE car on the road, giving a PHEV just 1 credit is a modest incentive to getting more clean cars on the road, and actually clean up California's air.

The CARB REX designation is joke that hobbles CS performance and imposes arbitrary equipment, the NA i3 REX gas tank had to be a half gallon smaller for CARB, of PHEVs that can help with our transportation emissions and fuel use. All because PHEVs get zero ZEV credits under the rules, and CARB claims to believe people getting a 80+ mile plug in will never actually plug it in.

It was a fair assumption, but the continuing sales of plug ins seems to imply the public is more willing to change their behavior than Toyota expected.

They want it in order to clean up the air. H2FCEVs, if they work out, are a long term project. The numbers sold today will have no impact on air quality in California, but CARB is favoring them now over technologies that can improve air quality now.

There are limits to battery swapping, and I have argued against them because of those limits, but Tesla's system wasn't a must use one. The car owners were free to chose use it or not, and many chose not too, which is something CARB cited as a reason for changing the rules. If a home hydrogen refilling station came out, and most H2FCEV owners chose to use it most of the time, then H2FCEV should lose their quick refill credits too by the same logic.

Hydrogen refueling also has its own limits. Transferring a gas will never be just like transferring a liquid. The SAE standard under which the 3 minute refill is possible allows a refill to take as long as 15 minutes. Assuming the station hasn't exceeded its daily car limit yet.

Stating that nationwide hydrogen infrastructure will be very expensive is not a knock against it. It is simply how it is, and taxpayers will have to foot much of the bill for H2FCEVs to have a chance. The equipment is simply much too expensive for private stations to build it out organically, and the car's absolutely need that infrastructure. Refueling at home simply isn't an option for the hard core early adopters like for BEVs and the first ICEs.

Then an advancement can easily make the hydrogen fuel cell and all that expensive infrastructure obsolete. Even something that doesn't eliminate hydrogen as the fuel, like prefilling the tank with pressurized water for a faster refill, will require even more tax payer money to upgrade the stations. How much has California paid to just upgrade the few old 5000psi hydrogen stations to 10k psi, and those are low volume stations?

Lexus LS 600h L has a combined mpg rating of 20mpg.

Then it is a good thing the big plug in sellers are all cleaner than ICE cars.

Using the Prius as your benchmark is a strawman as long as the Corolla can outsell it three to one.

Because the incentive ended up working far better than expected. Remember, Toyota was claiming their battery costs on the Prius PHEV were $1100 to $1200 per kWh when it first came to market.

There should be an expiration date to the incentive. The companies that waited on bringing a plug in to market shouldn't get more benefit than those that made the investment earlier.

And what did Toyota do to combat this? From where I am sitting, it appears they left that all to you and John.

The market was different than when the Prius first came to the US. Back then it was just the Prius and Insight; a four door vs. a two seater. That isn't direct competition. Which meant, with cheap gas, Toyota could take it slow to build sales. That isn't going to work when you have competitors like GM and Nissan being aggressive in getting their plug ins on the road.

Did you forget the Clarity and F-cell? These were both being leased during the time of the main hybrid incentives. They received some benefit from the $8000 FCEV tax credit back then. Shouldn't we not be giving FCEVs another round of federal tax credits now?

Wait a minute here. The hybrid incentives weren't cancelled in favor of plug in ones. They ended because that was how the laws were drafted and passed. The plug in lobby didn't come along and club them like a baby seal.

 

Why isn't this conclusion the epitome of 'crock' . . . . hydrogen cars that are designed to be refuled primarily from fracked natural gas &/or coal . . . . and when did that become carbon neutral? Oh well . . . . good thing that neither Japan, nor CARB are concerned about hydrogen production being toxic coal-ash neutral.
.

 

Are Electric Cars Really Green?

 

Sit in an enclosed garage with one of them "running" for 30 minutes, do the same in a Prius (or any other ICE vehicle) and you tell me.

 

That video discusses the dirty mining fallout that comes from extracting the necessary metals and its environmental toll. However, it apparently doesn't bother factoring in the electricity required to refine crude into usable gasoline (nor of the environmental cost to transport it). I'm not sure if it acknowledges the recyclable nature of lithium ion batteries either. I like Dennis Prager, but some do run with conservatism to a fault.

 

Most of these points have been debunked long ago
A) Short life span (90,000 used here) with no recycling
B) Electric cars run only on Coal
C) Only reason for plug-ins in CO2, not security from opec or unhealthy emissions
All are either wrong or misleading. If you want to use this to say FCV are better though, you will be sorely disapointed as - More CO2, the plan is really to use more coal (australian then h2 shipped to japan), construction costs higher, lifespan lower, etc.

Apply the same metrics to the prius vs corolla
Over 90,000 miles the prius will produce 10.8 metric tons of c02 less, but it probably using this video's math uses 6 more metric tons of CO2 to manufacture, leaving us at less than 5 metric tons, or about $35 using the videos math, or not really worth it for enviromental reasons. That mirai, is probably higher than the prius using this video's math.

I'm not saying use the bad math and reasoning included here. I'm saying realize that most of the points have already been debunked, but yes if lower ghg are the only reason for advanced tech cars and the value of ghg is low, then yes advance tech cars don't make much sense, including the prius.

If lower oil use is important, if tailpipe emissions in polluted cities matter, if fuel costs mater and the possiblity to lower prices as technology progresses, well throw out the bad reasoning.

 

This poor slob should have read the article recently released by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Life Cycle Electric Vehicle Emissions (2015) | Union of Concerned Scientists
What a horrible article for trying to prove how dirty EV's are. It was like listening to Art Spinella who 'proved' the Hummer is more eco-friendly then a Prius -
Jeez - while he was making stuff up he should have mentioned 'those toxic Sudbury Mines' as well. And which oil company was it that sponsored his contradictory 'research' ?
.

 

The first desire was to ask, "Are electric cars just golf carts?" Since the Tesla Model S golf cart made electric golf carts highly desirable, the next best slam is how "ungreen" an EV must be.

 

Some posters lose credibility with every article they post. Please try again.