VW says, fuel cells stupid for the next decade.

I see a lot of effort being expended to evade the timeline. Those doing that want to draw a conclusion now, based upon work in progress rather than waiting. It's quite telling.

The fuel-cell project has long-term goals. Along the way, of course there will be some gains & losses. That's how development on that scale works. You build test vehicles. Takes what's learned from them, then improve. Involving governments & consumers in real-world data-collection is a vital phase. But every time something like that emerges, the antagonists pounce.

We've seen the same thing happen with Prius PHV. Consumers were offered the opportunity to join in on the limited-market rollout. We all knew it was a mid-cycle upgrade. We all knew the next would be improved and offered to wider audience. Toyota knew those willing to spend the money right away would be ideal candidates for early purchase. It's quite obvious the data collected from that will go a long way toward reinforcing success of the next.

Notice that neither had a large production planned? Unlike Volt, which had a mainstream volume goal set for the second year, these were clearly stated as limited quantity & location. The spin of trying to make them more than they actually are isn't constructive by any means.

 

Commercialization means able to meet certification for sales. It doesn't mean high-volume rollout.

Define small. You can't just generalize like that. It takes years of real-world data-collection to find the right balance of cost, weight, size, and need. Then, you have to adjust for both technology & market change.

It was not the same. Toyota's was worldwide. GM's was this market only. That all changed when it was discovered the market wasn't ready for either. Toyota had planned for that flexibility. GM did not.

 

Your points are well taken, but some are after-the-fact and other still early. We knew extremely well that cost would come down rather dramatically and density would go up. We also knew that the air-cooled approach needed long-term exposure & use data. So, looking back without taking things like that into consideration distorts goals & intent.

In other words, flexibility had to be built into the plan. We know adjustments along the way based on what we learn along the way are important. That's why the seemingly randomness of some approaches gets so much spin.

Put simply, there's no point in drawing conclusions as long as there remains a diverse approach. Toyota is focusing on hybrids primarily, with fuel-cells a long-term compliment, and EV mixed in later on as it makes sense. Flexibility. GM even jumped on that, spreading from just Volt to adding Bolt & Malibu.

One size does not fit all. There will be a variety of solutions at a variety of times. The auto industry is clearly struggling to adjust. It's been quite a surprise, especially with the abrupt fall-apart of diesel for passenger cars.

 

John, some animals are dangerous when cornered. Leave some breathing room. That's all I gotta say.

 

I agree with the BEV/PHEV tailored manipulations are questionable at best.

There is a little bit of misdirection with that statement. It requires not using the Volt as a PHEV, but as a non-PHEV hybrid. All Volt owner that I know maximize the battery use, not the gas burning use. It also "blames" the vehicle for the shortcomings of the energy source. That is not stating that the Volt or Prius is a better vehicle, just pointing out that the vehicle makers can only achieve zero pollution for what they build, not the rest of the world. (i.e. I don't have any problem with Toyota devoting their resources to the Mirai. It is the manipulation of the politics and government that does the real damage. Toyota is fully aware that the Mirai "success" is only achievable via raiding the taxpayer immensely.)

 

What new efficiency/alternative technology hasn't used subsidies?

Heck, diesel owners got $51 Million in 2009 in tax-credits. Look at all the tax-credits that included both EV and charger purchases. What about solar & wind? And why are we still funding oil drilling?

Attempting to establish a new standard requires cooperation anyway. Why would any business attempt that without help.

Tesla certainly wasn't shy about asking for help. After all, GM didn't payback the bailout money. The government lost a bundle on the stock too.

 

Who is debating against using economic incentives? The discussion is effectiveness of various techniques.

 

The most bang for the buck is to give incentives to hybrid (non-plugin) vehicles.

 

For minimizing pollution from vehicles using fossil fuel, I would agree with this statement. For eliminating pollution from fossil fuels this will not work. Some bang for the buck is needed for eliminating pollution, not minimizing it.

 

Volt has a gas engine and even BEVs and PHEVs that charge off the grid has fossil fuel in them. You aren't eliminating fossil fuels with these but rather minimizing.

Only a BEV owner with an off-grid PV system with a massive home battery pack can claim that. I would agree giving incentives for that is justified.

However, plugins cars charging off fossil grid or with a gas tank is not justified. In fact, using the weighted average, they emit more fossil emission than a regular hybrid. It is an outrage.

I think we should give incentives to regular hybrids until it is no longer effective -- when elimination method brings more bang for the buck.

 

It's sad that toyota is a loser in this. Make the Prius BEV and you absolutley win. loved our Gen 2 prii, wife currently loves her PiP. NO WAY will I ever own a fool-cell vehicle. and everyone who will listen can hear about the LIES that the fuel-cell world is getting away with. Dieselgate will hopefully expose other inferior modes of transport, upon further review of the "facts" that CLEARLY show FCV is non-compete versus a straight-up EV. Not an opinion, but based on math and physics. How is it even close? shaking head...

 

What's with all the drawing conclusions already?

Losing comes from attempting to sell in high-volume (without subsidies) and not make a profit. They are far from that point still.

Prius continues to advance. Refinement of motor & battery is far from over.

 

About Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles (They're Not Clean)

 

I'm not sure what your exact claim is here.

On a US national average grid basis using a Utility Factor weighting to determine tailpipe plus upstream emissions, fueleconomy.gov typically shows BEV cars to have lower CO2 emissions than an equivalent hybrid model and PHEV variants have about the same emissions as their hybrid model.

For example, the HEV Sonata and PHEV Sonata both have around 270 g per mile and the same is true for the HEV vs PHEV Ford C-MAX and Fusion models. Same with Prius and Prius PHEV at around 220 g per mile. The 2016 Volt doesn't have a HEV variant but it's CO2 emissions of 220 g per mile are about 10g better than the 230g per mile for a 2016 Malibu hybrid.

Given that, I assume you are "cherry picking" and comparing a Prius HEV with a Ford Fusion Energi PHEV or something like that.

As I've noted before, most PHEVs (and HEVs) are sold in parts of the US that have lower than average carbon emissions from their utility grids. In these areas the HEV emissions stay about the same as their national estimate while the PHEV emissions do better on their regional grids.

Grids across the country are also lowering their carbon intensity quickly. The fueleconomy.com calculations are based on 2009 utility emissions when coal made up around 50% of the fuel mix which has now dropped well below 40% (was 34% this spring). During the useful lifetime of a HEV and PHEV purchased today, the PHEV will have substantially lower carbon emissions even assuming US national grid emissions calculated on a Utility Factor weighted basis.

You are outraged too easily.

The reason for favoring plugins is that HEVs alone, awesome as they are, do not ultimately contribute to eliminating enough transportation carbon emissions by themselves over the next 20-30 years. We need to get lots of PHEVs and BEVs into the mix to use the cleaned up grid power that we are moving towards. California's grid, which is already low carbon and 25% renewable, is targeted to be at 50% renewable by 2030. Other states will be moving in this direction but at a somewhat slower pace. California could reasonably reach the 80% renewable grid level by 2050 or perhaps even better.

 

the only outrage is how you neglect the large quantity of California plugins (substantial majority) and the substantial portion that charge off solar as you see below;

Typically - after you fail to acknowledge this reality - we will have to hear repeated - how clean the "non-renewable" natural gas-burning hydrogen cars are, when in fact natural gas will have to burn >90% of the time to reform hydrogen. But we don't mind - it justifies the opportunity to untwist that twist on reality. So, carry on.

well Austin - as often as we continue to repeat that fact as well, USB will continue to spout the technology as though it is cheaper and up and running since decades ago at a huge profit, rather than a hopeful pie in the sky.. Yes it's ridiculous, and inexplicable that he'd continue to bring it up as though it's the here and now but as I told him above, we'll continue to untwist the lack of reality, so as above, I encourage him to carry on.

.

 

It is the case now but not when plugins were launched 5 years ago prematurely.

Even if they are as clean now, why should they get $7,500? They need to be cleaner.

I do the same with my PiP also. But my system is grid tied so it is fossil fuel dependent. I am sure that system in the puc as well. The panels looks nice to greenwash but they are not enough for those EVs.

What about many other plugins charging off coal and natural gas electricity? I hear zero criticism about them but natural gas in hydrogen production gets bad mouth. Double standard.