CARB’s Fuel Cell Detour on the Road to Zero Emission Vehicle

Thanks for posting that article. It really hit the mark with me. I have long felt that we were on the path to a really usable plug in EV with the Toyota RAV4 EV and the final version of the GM EV-1. I couldn't figure out why California caved in on zero emission vehicles to go in favor of future (i.e. never happen) hydrogen/fuel cell powered vehicles. Now I am beginning to understand the amount of influence that the automobile manufacturers had over CARB. Anybody with half a brain knows that hydrogen/fuel cell vehicles are not fuel efficient and never will be. Just the energy losses in fuel conversion from Natural gas to hydrogen kills it in its tracks before you even get to the economics of building and selling the vehicle. It is just a ploy to keep everybody off track so the American manufacturers can build high profit SUV's, gas guzzling pickup trucks (for family use only) and avoid building economy vehicles with smaller profit margins. There are many areas in the U.S. that could use a plug in EV. If they were sold on the national market, people would buy them. I still have a battery charger for a GM EV-1. When you turn it on the display reads "waiting for vehicle"---I guess it will have to wait forever.

 

The problem with EV's is their grossly limited range. The LA basin is simply huge. You can literally drive over an hour within the basin, and never leave the urban area there. The automakers knew this, as did the buying public. GM and Toyota leased very few of these vehicles, as they simply were not appropriate for the area. GM did further damage by limiting them to the LA and Phoenix areas. I do agree that there are places where one would have worked, and the public might have given the vehicle better support.

Additionally, CARB for all of its "good" intentions, has gotten caught up within itself. Lately, they have paid little to no attention to the feasability of their requirements. This caused the auto industry to file lawsuits against CARB to get the ZEV mandate dropped. The fuel cell agreement was a settlement.

 

But the range can be improved, if battery technology improves. I think that hybrids like the Prius are creating the mass market for large high-capacity EV batteries. This will create incentives for manufacturers to come up with higher energy density designs (if only to make the battery packs smaller, as in the 3 generations of Prius). That's one of the main reasons I feel it is important to buy the Prius - you're paying for the development of EV technology.

Beyond that, you just need to get the charging time down. An EV with 250 mile range and 15 minute charging time would be quite acceptable, I feel. Anyone who's driven 250 miles should be taking a 15-minute break for everyone's safety, tbh.

 

KMO, eventually that may be the case. However, CARB's requrements paid no attention to the state of current technology. Consequently, the automakers pushed back - and rightfully so, IMO.

The 250 mile range will probably be doable in the next decade or so. However, it'll be another challenge in of itself to recharge that high of a capacity battery pack in such a short period of time without frying it.

I have a one hour charger for my NiMh AA batteries for my digital camera. They are typically VERY hot when they are done, and their energy density is low in comparison to the packs in the Prius.

Personally, I'd like a bit more than 250 miles. However, if both hurdles as you describe them could be done, I'd be quick to jump on one as a daily use AND trip car - assuming the infrastructure would quickly be brought online as well.