If you had a chance to meet Mary Nichols...

I suspect she is getting ready for the Trump-EPA show down.

I would ask her:

What would be the failure criteria on fuel cell vehicles?​

Bob Wilson

 

Seems related:

CARB Chair And Her Love Of The Toyota Mirai and Fuel Cell Tech

 

Sad to say, dated: "MAR 18 2016".

If we use the 'way back' machine we find the hydrogen fuel cell advocates saw batteries as too limited and expensive. Then Tesla and possibly GM improved both:
Electric Vehicle Battery: Materials, Cost, Lifespan | Union of Concerned Scientists

When the first mass-market EVs were introduced in 2010, their battery packs cost an estimated $1,000 per kilowatt-hour (kWh). Today, Tesla's Model 3 battery pack costs $190 per kWh, and General Motors’ 2017 Chevrolet Bolt battery pack is estimated to cost about $205 per kWh. That's a drop of more than 70% in the price per kWh in 6 years!​

Bob Wilson

 

I don't understand.

Your profile shows that you live a LONG way away from California. Why such a keen interest ??

And I think a reasonable person should not expect to "like" everything that happens around them.......and should follow that second sentence quoted above.

If we all would listen more and try to filter out the BS a little better, I think we'd all be better off.

And lastly, when approaching the west coast and coming down from the mountains......and seeing the BROWN AIR enveloping most of the major population areas.......I'm not sure that ANY action taken to try and clean up the air can really be criticized.

 

Assume, for the sake of argument, that fuel-cell costs are undergoing price reductions as lithium battery assembles. This still leaves a hydrogen infrastructure to be created.

Electrical distribution infrastructure already exists. Although obviously with room for improvement.

So, one might ask about why a parallel infrastructure is needed? Perhaps there is a good answer to that.

==
Nichols is, at least, the public face of CARB. Its policies impact all states and foreign manufacturers as well. Move to unleaded fuel and catalytic converters (national and really global) was accelerated by CARB (before Nichols joined). Surely they deserve gold stars for those efforts. Some other more recent activities are controversial.

 

I would give CARB a strong "B". They frequently do brilliant things followed by an "Oh feces" moment:

1. F - not following up on the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles.
2. D - failure to complete the tire rolling resistance program.
3. A - excellent testing including portable emissions that revealed the VW cheat.
4. B - incremental improvements in testing protocols.
5. A - excellent air quality testing in cities and other regions.
6. C - full scale testing of fuel cell vehicles ... the only way to puncture the earlier claims.
7. A - credits that helped Tesla stay in business.

Bob Wilson

 

An F grade (PNGV) would seem to imply that there was a feasible, useful path not taken. I'm not sure what that would have been for California. (American) automakers did not want to continue it and Feds did not want to pay for it.

 

I was thinking crushed EV1 and the rather excellent designs in PNGV. California implemented a mileage cost/credit system and I suspect CARB could have initially supported early production.

Bob Wilson

 

This is exactly why we ALL need to listen to what everybody says on subjects that affect our life .......or the health of the planet for our descendants. Even the most whacked out extremists occasionally make a valid point.

I think all current politicians need to have a couple of things tattooed on the back of their hands:
One side says: Cooperation is the key to progress.
And the other: Everyone who disagrees with you is NOT EVIL.

 

Here on Prius Chat we have not made a big deal of the very recent Trump admin move to take away CARB powers to supercede the Federal Gov't on auto standards, but this would seem to be a once-in-a-lifetime chance to hear about that from the CARB perspective, which I do not necessarily agree with CARB uber alles, but I'd go to hear history in the making.

Wow there is already a Song
California Über Alles - Wikipedia

 

I don't know exactly what question(s) I would ask..but I agree with this:

In this day and age, The good and bad, is that we can pretty much specialize and filter our information. If we don't want to hear an dissenting opinion, or different viewpoint from what we already believe? We don't have to.
And I really don't think that is good.

I'd go and listen. Then either questions will manifest, or they will not. I don't think you necessarily need a pre-concieved question to ask. See what direction the communication is going in...then react.

Caveat: I have made myself a complete idiot doing this exact thing.

 

I'll take "The opportunities inherent in building it are more closely controlled by the same parties supporting it" for $200 please

 

The PNGV prototypes were expensive in part because of the all aluminum bodies. Not even the Model 3 is all aluminum.
Then they were diesels, and CARB likely wanted no part of that.

 

The industry needs to come up with a new "name" for an engine that ignites on compression only but does not burn conventional "diesel fuel". Continuing to call that kind of an engine a "diesel" is just confusing.......even for some people who should know better.

 

The issue is actually in applying the name to the fuel. We don't put Otto juice into gasoline powered cars.

 

Maybe but that usage is already so imbeaded that it's unreasonable to think it will ever change.