Apr 25, 2014
dalalsid BMW 3 Hybrid starts at 50k AFAIK. If BMW made a 200 mile BEV that is cheaper, who would buy the hybrid? So the starting price of a BMW Model E competitive in specs car would be at least 55k.�
Apr 25, 2014
adiggs Heh - the hybrid would be bought by the people that don't want to wait through a 1 year queue of people buying the BEV?
- - - Updated - - -
Well said Krugerrand - we don't view the 3-series as a competitor to Audi's A4, in the sense that one is going to put the other out of business. Yet somehow, in the EV business, that's the kind of language being used in the media, and sometimes here. The reality is that competition WILL create situations where people substitute one make/model for a different make/model, and that's what has been going on in the car business for decades. It's an indication of a healthy and competitive market, not that a company is going to shrivel up and die.
I'm looking forward to seeing what Tesla is like when they have actual competition.�
Apr 25, 2014
Merrill The market will dictate the future and when there is a nice looking all electric vehicle that can go 200 to 300 miles on a charge and costs under $40k things will take off for EV's. The common comment I get when someone see the Model S and learns it is all electric is why is it that all the other EV's on the market are so ugly. Most people still look at what is available in their price range and continue to buy ICE cars.�
Apr 25, 2014
MarkR Many may recall that it was Elon's intention to spur the development of electric vehicles from other manufacturers. Competition is good . . . the America way, even if the competition comes from Germany, Japan, China or India.
As a stockholder and vehicle owner, I want a Tesla to succeed, but as a human being, I want EVs to succeed in helping to alter the energy utilization paradigm. Tesla can't do this alone.
It appears that the Supercharger network will boost Tesla sales when intercity travel is considered, but we all know that 95+% of our driving is very easily accomplished with home charging. I think that many 'two car families' are apt to have one comfortable long-range EV (Tesla or hybrid) and another short-range EV for city driving. Tesla may want to bring back a small battery pack for the ME to address the second car demand for just a city car.�
Apr 25, 2014
dsm363 Not everyone is comfortable buying a car from a new manufacturer. They may have had BMWs for decades and want to stick with what they know. I'm not saying it would be a better car and it wouldn't have to be for some people. It would be a BMW.�
Apr 25, 2014
dirkhh The biggest challenge is battery supply. When one of the big car makers starts building their own giga-factory or massively invests in a battery maker, that's when it's worth to pay attention. Until then we'll see compliance cars (Ford, Chevy) and concept cars (BMW, Audi, Mitsubishi, Renault).
Nissan seems like the only one even trying, but they have the same battery supply issue. Where will they get 4* the battery supply if they are planning a successful Leaf2 with 50+kWh battery?�
Apr 25, 2014
Krugerrand Valid point, but still doesn't make that particular BMW model a 'threat' to Tesla.�
Apr 25, 2014
dsm363 Tesla competition developments
In that case nothing is a threat to Tesla. The 3 series BMW is number 2 all time on Car and Driver's 10 best list with 22 wins
Car and Driver 10Best - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It's a very popular model.
So you're saying if BMW made a 3 series EV that didn't suck it wouldn't sell? Tesla basically has zero competition so if anyone comes up with a compelling alternative it is a threat. That doesn't mean it's a big threat but going from zero threat to a small threat is still a threat.�
Apr 25, 2014
c041v I think you're both right?
I have a hard time wrapping my head around how a credible 3 series EV won't cannibalize itself first though. In order to become a measurable threat to Tesla, they would literally have to produce every iteration of the 3 Series in compelling EV form. Otherwise, BMW's internal limitations will only allow them to take a slice of the very large entry-level luxury car pie, which I think was what Krugerrand was alluding to.
It it would be interesting to see an established manufacturer slowing crash into the rocks trying to create products that compete with themselves and burn engineering/marketing dollars far faster than they bring them in.�
Apr 25, 2014
dsm363 If it existed I'm sure it would be the highest priced 3 series model. That said I don't think BMW will make it anyway. They have their i lineup it seems. I guess the i5 could be a sedan of some kind.�
Apr 26, 2014
Auzie I am plotting in my head the most likely scenarios and timeline of the car making businesses switch to ev. I have outlined some basic scenarios below. The scenarios represent broad possible futures. Going into details adds a lot of complexity but may be of a limited value. My assigned timelines and likelihoods of each possible future are in relation to each other and have no other basis.
Please feel free to criticize and add new scenarios. I am very curious how people here see the future of car making business. Our collective wisdom may give far better outcome than individual thinking.
The timeline is relevant as it marks time points for one�s long position exit strategy, for people holding shares. I would like to be able to exit TSLA long position over several years, to optimize (or minimize) tax. Good time to start the exit might be different for each investor, but having in mind various timelines may be helpful in each individual�s decision making process.
Timelines and likelihoods will become more defined as events unfold.
My assumptions: Drivers have a preference for ev over ice car. Drivers will keep buying ice cars because evs are unavailable. Once evs are available, the switch to evs will happen in all geographical markets where they are available.
Scenario 1:
Ice car makers behavior stays the same as it is at the moment, with no changes to their main business of making and selling ice cars. Making and selling compromise technology hybrids is a peripheral compliance business. The forces that can change such behavior are regulation and evs competitiveness/availability. In this scenario regulation as a force is nonexistent.
In this scenario evs will be scarce until Tesla builds new car making factories around the world. Once evs are increasingly available, that will gradually drive price of ice cars down. At this point, ice car makers will start adopting ev technology, incurring huge cost simultaneously with loosing income. They might not survive this scenario. Tesla buys out their facilities. Tesla grows, may split into numerous businesses. Variation to this scenario is that Tesla never reaches size that can satisfy worldwide ev demand. Consequently Tesla and ice makers coexist.
Likelihood: 30%;
Timeline: 20-30 years to play out.
Scenario 2:
All car makers develop competitive ev models in the next few years as a part of sustainable business strategy. They may suffer losses due to Osborne effect. With time, these businesses gradually increase their ev production and decrease ice cars making. Their expenses related to new technology will be spread over number of years helping to keep their businesses viable. Some car makers are likely to survive the event of worldwide ev availability.
Likelihood: 15%;
Timeline: 12-20 years to play out.
Scenario 3:
All car makers develop competitive ev models in the next few years, due to regulatory pressures. They may suffer losses due to Osborne effect. With time, these businesses gradually increase their ev production and decrease ice car making. Their expenses related to new technology will be spread over number of years helping to keep their businesses viable. Some car makers are likely to survive the event of worldwide ev availability.
Likelihood: 5%;
Timeline: 12-20 years to play out.
Scenario 4:
Some car makers follow S.1, some follow S.2 or S.3 script. Some car makers develop competitive ev models in the next few years. Such businesses may suffer losses due to Osborne effect. With time, these businesses gradually increase their ev production and decrease ice car making. Their expenses related to new technology will be spread over number of years helping to keep their businesses viable. Some car makers have a chance to survive the event of worldwide ev availability.
Relevant point in this scenario is the split between car makers following the scenarios 1 or 2 and 3. That split will have an effect on the timeline. I kept the split factor out for simplicity.
Likelihood: 50%;
Timeline: 16-26 years to play out.
Scenario 5:
Tesla is out of business. Likelihood very low.�
Apr 26, 2014
kenliles Nice- thanks Auzie.
In all of those scenarios, Tesla will triple in value from current, given the timelines (which I agree with);
Including 5 (that scenario is a buy-out)
�
Apr 26, 2014
SebastianR Not sure this would be a clear cut "threat" or "no threat" situation: often times having at least some competition is good for business: it shows that the market/product idea itself is viable etc. One of the problems I encounter discussing with Germans are statements like this: "its easy to build an electric car, if Audi wanted to, they could do it, too". Thus, if we had an electric 3 Series, Tesla would gain massively as electric cars would be vastly more accepted and popular. So while I agree that if miraculously every car maker tomorrow would offer compelling electric cars would be a massive threat to Tesla, I think having an i3/i8 on the market, a slightly better Nissan Leaf etc. is actually good: these cars are clearly not compliance cars and thus help to validate that electric cars are viable cars.�
Apr 26, 2014
EarlyAdopter If I had the only bar on a street I'd welcome, not resist, another one or three opening up on the same street. In fact, I'd worry if over time no one else opened another one up.�
Apr 26, 2014
dennis In order to build a competitor to the Model S, the current manufacturers would need to develop a 200+ mile range BEV and a fast charge network. With current battery technology and costs, we know that is at minimum a $70K+ car, which puts it in the luxury segment. While that segment provides some additive revenue for MB/BMW/Lexus/VW Group, it is not the volume part of their business. Ford/GM/Nissan don't really participate in that segment. So the Model S does not really represent a competitive threat to the ICE manufacturers because it is only seen to be taking sales away in a niche part of their business, if at all.
Gen III is a whole different ball game since it attacks a large and profitable part of the ICE companies' business. We need to look no farther than the ongoing efforts of most manufacturers to develop a car that effectively competes against the BMW 3 Series to understand the importance of this segment. So to the extent that the other companies believe that Tesla will be able to produce a $35K-$40K BEV with a 200 mile range, I would expect them to attempt a competitive response. I don't think that BMW, for example, would be worried about cannibalizing their existing 3 Series business if they perceived that Tesla would be taking sales away from the 3 Series anyway. So the limitation I see in the competitive response to Gen 3 is Tesla's experience lead in battery tech, charging infrastructure, BEV platform design, etc.�
Apr 27, 2014
ggr I agree; I'd been trying to figure out a way to express this "opening up the market", but failing. Thanks.�
Apr 27, 2014
Julian Cox I believe it is very clear indeed what is happening out there in the competitive landscape and respectfully most are looking in the wrong place.
At this juncture one component of Elon Musk's publicly stated vision has failed spectacularly: That is the encouragement of Big Auto to transition to making compelling EVs at low price points in order to try to compete with Tesla.
The laws of disruption would appear to be unbreakable because that is not what is happening.
Instead, what is happening is a concerted effort to get rid of Tesla with the aim of returning to business as usual.
Playing Dirty with Hydrogen.
What Tesla is up against is Hydrogen given away for free for leased and subsidised FCVs. Obviously an FCV costs a lot more than an EV and Hydrogen costs a lot more per kWh that the Natural Gas feedstock - at least as expensive as gasoline probably between 10 and 100 times more expensive owing to complexity and extremely poor economies of scale. Nevertheless all of the major car makers with the possible exception of Nissan are rushing FCVs to market under false and misleading banners of abundant element, water vapour exhaust, green, clean, totally emissions free, energy of the future, better for the environment, for our children's future blah blah blah, lie lie lie.
Bottom line Fossil Fuel and Big Auto are going after Tesla's customer base and Tesla's media and political support base (and investor base), with the falsehood that hydrogen is something other than Fracking and Steam Reforming, and by offering hydrogen at Supercharger prices - i.e. free. (See Hyundai Tucson, can pretty much bet that Toyota will launch with the same model and all the rest).
What they are not doing is going after Tesla with elegant EVs.
It is vitally important for Tesla to shut down this BS. If it wins it wins the auto market - or at least it has a whole decade of monopoly and as many NUMMIs to pick up for a song as you can shake a stick at.
None the less, I am certain that the hydrogen fraud is life or death for green energy in general. This is the way Big Oil an Big auto want to come at Solar and EVs.�
Apr 27, 2014
Larken I think you hit the nail on the head Julian, excellent analysis. We are all too familiar with how Big Oil and Big Auto works, and they never work for anything else other than their own interest.�
Apr 27, 2014
gg_got_a_tesla Indeed. For those watching the TV series, Cosmos, last Sunday's episode tackled the lifelong battle waged by Dr. C.C. Patterson against Big Oil and Big Auto about lead poisoning thanks to leaded gasoline. This episode's a must-see to understand how they use shady tactics including getting "scientists" to back their choices.�
Apr 27, 2014
Julian Cox
The amazing thing about disruption is that old industries will die trying to protect the old way of doing things.
The super obvious thing for big oil to do is buy up the solar industry and become an energy company in the round. But no - they will fight the tide instead and fight to the death, as will big auto.
This time they will lose but the battle will be nasty and best anticipated as far in advance as possible. Truth is that the hydrogen scam is already relatively well embedded and to a large extent embraced by otherwise sensible organisations.
Shell is sponsoring National Geographic and pushing hydrogen on green consumers.
Union of Concerned Scientist website carries some positive articles for Hydrogen.
California Air Resources Board has sunk $200 Million into distributed steam reforming stations for local CO2 pollution (for heaven's sake) - that is despite getting defrauded over the EV1 by the same scam in the late 1990s.
The reason for Hydrogen is extremely straight forward to understand.
Unfortunately the green-hoax surrounding it is very complex, too complex for the average level of scientific education in the US both consumer and politician.
Many idealistic scientists with no clue about economics can and have been bought for the promotion of trojan horse methods of hydrogen production that are easily overwhelmed economically by steam reforming of natural gas.
It goes on and on. I will post a large article on the subject shortly.�
May 20, 2014
ItsNotAboutTheMoney Margin. Companies have the best margin in their greatest areas of strength, with existing product lines. When a company is forced to compete either by shifting emphasis or with new technology, sales move from a high margin area to a low margin area. Cannibalization happens where customers migrate from high to low margin products.
Tesla is currently operating at 0 profit margin. Any company that has to adjust prices to compete with Tesla will hurt their profits. Amazon has used this to crush opposition.
The key potential threat from Tesla is margin.
If Tesla's plan succeeds, by 2019 or 2020 they'll be selling 500k Gen 3s per year. Please also remember that Tesla would also have the Model X, which will introduce 4WD and broaden their market base. Tesla Gen 3 sales will come from the luxury segment but also from "premium mainstream" buyers. Those 500k Tesla sales wouldn't just represent lost sales to other manufacturers, they'd be losses of high margin sales.
Also, success for Tesla would mean that even if they were initially production constrained, consumer interest could shift away from the internal combustion engine. Since manufacturers have a lot of existing IP (and thus profit margin) in engine technology, and outsource most everything else, a shift in consumer interest would represent a huge loss of value. Not to mention that a pure electric drivetrain should increase reliability and has the potential further to extend ownership cycles.
Finally, the nature of BEVs means that in future if there's a leap in battery technology, a manufacturer that doesn't have access to that technology could die very, very quickly.�
May 20, 2014
stevezzzz Julian, I fear that the closing sentence of your cover letter destroys any chance that the rest of your submission will be taken seriously by the Commission.�
May 20, 2014
Robert.Boston That's the wrong margin to look at. The gross margin is over 25%, so each additional car generates that much incremental profit. Therefore, the Model S price is quite substantially above production cost. The net income line is close to zero because corporate spends the profit it earns selling cars on R&D, SG&A, and so forth.�
May 20, 2014
Julian Cox OK this got picked up by Cleantechnica
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/05/20/fuel-cell-vehicle-ghg-emissions/
- - - Updated - - -
And more importantly paying for growth - which is after all what we are interested in. They can flat line growth and bask profits at any time.�
May 20, 2014
stevezzzz
Hey, Julian: I'm on your side, and I was trying to be nice. Your willingness to dismiss my comment with a facile epigram does you no credit. I'll be blunt: that last sentence in your cover letter has no place in a fact-based discussion about clean tech and policy, and it gives the Commission an easy out to avoid a serious consideration of your argument, an argument that deserves to be heard and understood.�
May 20, 2014
CalDreamin You're not the only one. I'm open to evidence-based arguments for a Big Auto - Big Oil conspiracy against BEVs. So far, I find the the evidence to be lacking.
Big Oil loses whether FCVs win or BEVs win. Most Big Oil profits come from immensely capital intensive projects to produce petroleum, at a relatively high cost per barrel. If either FCVs or BEVs take enough market share for oil demand to substantially shrink, then only the low-cost producers of oil can survive. Most low-cost oil production is in the Middle East and Africa, and most is owned by national oil companies, NOT Big Oil. Big Oil's massive investments in deep offshore, oil sands, shale oil, and other expensive to produce sources would become money losers. Big Oil's investments in oil refining would also become money losers if this scenario comes to pass.
Big Oil also produces natural gas, and they see an increasing future for natural gas in vehicle transport. Regardless of whether this natural gas is burned in electric power plants to charge BEVs and PHEVs and for other uses, or the natural gas is used in SMRs to make hydrogen for FCVs, either way they see a growing long-term market for natural gas.
Big Oil owns and operates (mostly older) SMR hydrogen plants, integrated into their oil refineries. However, over the last 10-20 years, when one of their oil refineries has been expanded, they have mostly turned to Air Products, Linde, Praxair, or one of the other specialty gas manufacturers to build new SMR hydrogen plants near their refineries. They purchase the hydrogen under contract. Big Oil has increasingly out sourced hydrogen production to these specialty gas manufacturers. The specialty gas manufacturers own and operate the most modern and efficient hydrogen plants.
As for the network of branded gasoline stations, these are almost all independently-owned franchises. For the most part, Big Oil has been getting out of the direct retail gasoline business (at least in the US, not sure about elsewhere). If these became hydrogen filling stations and transitioned out of the gasoline business, it might make more sense for these independently-owned stations to rebrand as Air Products, Linde, Praxair, or one of the other specialty gas manufacturers. That's who these stations would most likely be buying their hydrogen from.
If either FCVs or BEVs become dominant factors in vehicle transport, Big Oil would lose most of their profit streams and massive capital investments. It not in the best interests of Big Oil for either of these ICE alternatives to become big.
As a result, some oil companies (e.g. Koch) have funded organized FUD campaigns against alternative energy and climate change science.
Other oil companies know that AGW is real, and know there will be a transition to alternative energy. There has already been some of that, in the form of gradually stricter MPG requirements. Some oil companies (e.g. Shell) have lobbied for increased government regulation of GHG emissions, so that the transition to a lower-carbon future can be more orderly than the alternative, an increasingly likely and damaging panic transition. They view natural gas replacing coal as a significant part of the transition.
Some oil companies have invested in low carbon energy, such as Total's ownership interest in SunPower. But more broadly, Big Oil's track record in solar and wind power has been to invest, but later get out.�
May 20, 2014
Julian Cox There is no need for a conspiracy theory.
The conspiracy fact is laid out in the central policy document of the US Government on the subject:
Energy Department Launches Public-Private Partnership to Deploy Hydrogen Infrastructure | Department of Energy
The only other thing worth knowing is that the average FCV (a low power HEV) pollutes at a rate of 42mpg according to the most definitive DOE NREL study on the subject. Other low power HEVs pollute at a rate of 50mpg (Prius). This is the same study that has been twisted to tell the world that FCVs pollute half as much as Gasoline - how - because by the numbers the comparison vehicle in the NREL study was a 21 mpg car!
There is a lot of natural gas, Chinese are happy enough to pay twice the amount at the pump as the US so "unfriendly and unstable" foreign nations prefer to sell their oil there instead.
US has fracked natural gas in abundance but it is not compatible with road vehicles and consumers are demanding green emissions free cars and affirmative action on climate change.
What to do?
Convert the frack-gas to hydrogen and tell consumers it's good for the environment, focus all attention on the water vapour exhaust and do that until they think they can remember knowing it all along as though it were true.
- - - Updated - - -
Julian,
Thank you for your email. I will forward this on to program management.
Rachel L. Grant Kiley, Manager
Contracts, Grants and Loans Office
California Energy Commission�
May 20, 2014
Julian Cox BTW the politics of this basically go like this:
The "US Economy" needs to be based on Natural Gas, domestic oil in short supply, domestic NG in large supply.
What cold harm the rate of adoption of natural gas?
Environmentally concerned consumers and by far the worst threat: Compelling EVs due to be unveiled in 2015 by Tesla Motors Inc exacerbating consumer resistance.
Basically consumers that are so out of touch with reality that don't seem to understand that they won't give a damn about the Polar bears when "The Economy" tanks.
Define "US Economy".
A hand full of 100 year businesses that are losing economic relevance at a small but rapidly accelerating rate to solar and EVs (Big Auto + Fossil Fuel industry).�
May 20, 2014
ItsNotAboutTheMoney But that's my point: Tesla has 0 profit margin because it reinvests everything and the investors don't care right now because they're looking post Gen 3 and 4. An incumbent competing against that has to upset somebody.�
May 20, 2014
Newb Big Oil supporting Tesla competition
True, but they would lose much less in a scenario in which methane/hydrogen engine technology is predominant whereas in a pure-BEV future, ideally powered by wind and solar, Big Oil as well as �Big Coal� loses.
But of course, Big Oil will do everything they can to promote a looooooong transition to any alternative to ICEs, simply to continue to make the huge money they make for as long as possible.
I agree. That is why they strongly support, and admittedly are strongly in favour of FCVs over BEVs, since they know that hydrogen/H2/fuel cell cars is an idea deemed to fail, which will never succeed, as some people experienced with this technology already stated here in this thread.
And by the way, talking about Big Oil interests has nothing to do with conspiracy theory. It�s just rational for business managers to do everything in their power to let their business to be successful as long as possible. And to counter-attack BEV technology in its infancy phase (now) is simply part of their long-term strategy to prevent the pure-BEV future. You would try the same if you were boss of one of the Big Oil companies, I am pretty sure.
- - - Updated - - -
Anyone interested to learn about Big Oil's picture of a bright engine technology future, just don't take my words for granted, but read through their own official statements in their "new lens scenario" for example...and make up your own mind about their interests:
(will post link in separate reply to prevent quarantine)
Quote from page 7, in which they paint a "best-case-scenario" ("The hydrogen phoenix") :
"�Electricity companies find it increasingly difficult to balance base load and intermittent sources of generation, and hopes fade that smart grids will be ablte to meet the sheer scale of the challange to balance the system on their own. Scares over brownouts start ot increase, and attention to hydrogen-based energy storage redoubles as building power stations that are idle most of the time proves expensive and difficult to sustain. Independently, public interest in next-generation fuel-cells verhicles grows. Top Gear decided for its 40[SUP]th[/SUP] anniversary edition in 2017 to celebrate a widening range of �reassuringly expensive� high-performance hydrogen fuel cell vehicles now in reach for wealthier consumers in both the West and the rapidly rising economies of Asia.
Building on earlier small-scale collaborative programmes, an alliance of car companies, energy companies, and hydrogen industry suppliers formed in 2020 secures support and incentives in several countries for substanatial progeramms to build hydrogen infrastructure. Policymakers recognise the pressing need to secure stable and affordable electricity supplies and to reduce emissions from urban transport. The prospect of a more flexible, efficient, and clean energy system from integrating fossiul fuel use with carbion dioxide capture is also attractive."
...they wish...
- - - Updated - - -
Here's the link to the hydrogen fuel-cell cars scenario for Big Oil:
http://s01.static-shell.com/content/dam/shell-new/local/corporate/Scenarios/Downloads/Scenarios_newdoc.pdf�
May 20, 2014
William13 I believe that Julian's letter is very important. The facts about FCV versus BEV and ICE and diesel are very important to lay out to CARB. I expect the Hiroshima and conspiracy comments may lessen his impact. True or False, I would have left them out of the letter or made it a codicil/addendum.�
May 20, 2014
Auzie I might be a bit off topic here, but this is like a deja vu. History repeating itself, reminds me of 'War of the currents"�
May 20, 2014
AustinPowers Perhaps I just vastly underestimate the margin effect, but I thought that companies were smart enough to see beyond current high-margin products to what future high-margin products will be. As battery tech gets better while at the same time cheaper, margins will increase. Any sane car company will have realized this, which I am sure is why so many manufacturers are starting to promote the shift towards alternative energy vehicles.
Why do I arrive at this conclusion?
Take VW/Audi/BMW for example (and I am talking about the situation in Europe of course).
They started their car business with gasoline cars, diesel was of hardly any interest in the first few decades.
Then TDI technology arrives, along with a growing public interest in more efficient vehicles. The first shift occurs, diesel engines are introduced widely in the lineup, from citycars to luxury limousines to even convertibles (which always seemed to stay a diesel-free zone forever).
Some years later, public awareness for environmental concerns has increased even more, the first hybrids like the Prius appear. At first seen like a novelty item, hybrids (and plug-in hybrids) are now becoming standard offerings in many models, soon surely in the entire lineup.
BEVs now are what hybrids where when the Prius was introduced. Again, seen as novelty items by many now, in a few years time they will become what hybrids are now.
Change always takes a while and happens gradually, but I am certain that this is the road that carmakers (at least those that want to stay in business) are bound to take.
Whether hydrogen vehicles will ever enter into this equation I don't know. But somehow I doubt it.
And oil companies will learn to adjust as well, as examples like Shell show. Perhaps it will take the US "Big Oil" lot a bit longer to realize that, but their way of reacting to "threats" from companies like Tesla (or better technology in general) just won't work anymore in this century. The general public isn't as stupid or indifferent or powerless as it (probably) used to be any longer.�
May 21, 2014
Dan5 More like the light wars between Edison and Rockefeller. Actually same things were said 100 years ago against electricity too (fires, hazardous, etc).�
May 21, 2014
CalDreamin For many years, there has been a widespread belief among many government energy and environmental agencies, university and national laboratory experts, as well as many within the auto and energy industries that the future of sustainable transport involves hydrogen FCVs. This belief predates the existence of Tesla. It's based on a view that the convenience of fast refueling is essential for widespread consumer acceptance, and that FCVs will be the only affordable vehicles that can achieve long range using sustainable energy and zero tailpipe emissions.
Toyota, Honda, Hyundai and others have made long-term big investments in FCVs, and relatively less in BEVs, because they believe FCVs are future of sustainable transport. They would be knowingly setting their companies up for serious harm if they actually believed FCVs were doomed to fail and that BEVs are the future.
We may disagree with those who believe that hydrogen FCVs are the future of sustainable transport. A difference of opinion does not support a claimed conspiracy to undermine BEV adoption by promoting FCV technology that proponents allegedly know is doomed to fail. I've seen no evidence presented here that any serious supporter in government, academia, or industry supports FCVs in an attempt to undermine BEVs, while believing that FCVs are doomed to fail. The arguments against FCVs are much stronger without resorting to irrational conspiracy theories.
Since I work with high pressure hydrogen in my professional life, I personally can't get past the safety risks of having 10,000 psig of hydrogen in large tanks riding around in my car with me. It's like driving around with bombs on board.
I agree that the most likely fuel source for significant near and medium term adoption of FCVs -- hydrogen produced from natural gas SMR without CCS (carbon capture and sequestration) -- does not have sufficient environmental benefits to be worth the immense costs to build the fueling infrastructure. Well-to-wheels GHG emissions from FCVs using NG SMR w/o CCS are not significantly lower than a conventional gasoline-electric hybrid vehicle like a Prius or Accord hybrid. A hydrogen FCV fueling station costs 10 times more to build than a Tesla Supercharger station, and many more of them would be needed because an owner would not be able to fuel a FCV at home overnight, unlike a Tesla or any other BEV.
There are lower GHG pathways to hydrogen, such as natural gas SMR combined with CCS. But this will never be cost competitive with natural gas SMR without CCS, so if it's not mandated or strongly incentivized in some way it will not happen, ever.
Electrolysis from renewable energy is another potential pathway for low GHG hydrogen. But it's not cost competitive with NG SMR hydrogen, so it won't happen on a large scale in the foreseeable future unless mandated or strongly incentivized.
Another low GHG pathway to hydrogen involves biogas/biomass SMR, these are renewable sources. However, there is a limited amount of biogas/biomass and it's valuable for renewable electricity generation. Yesterday, California's electrical grid included 11,600 MWh from burning biomass and biogas, a small but important part of California's RPS power mix. If this biomass/biogas was diverted to making hydrogen for FCVs, it would increase GHG emissions of the electrical grid. I see no net win for the environment using biogas/biomass to make hydrogen for FCVs.
I don't believe that FCVs should be eligible for any ZEV credits or other environmental credits unless automakers and other industry supporters fund the construction and operation of a fueling network that uses sufficiently low GHG hydrogen sources. WTW GHG emissions should be mandated to decrease over time from this hydrogen fueling network, just as RPS mandates are forcing reductions in GHG emissions from the electrical grid over time. Tesla is funding the construction and operation of a fueling network for buyers of their cars. Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Air Products, Linde, Praxair, etc. can fund the construction and operation of a fueling network for buyers of FCVs, with no more government subsidies than Tesla gets for building Supercharger stations.
As we know, BEV well-to-wheels emissions depend a great deal on the power source. Cleaning up the grid makes BEVs cleaner. But much more importantly, cleaning up the grid reduces emissions for ALL electricity consumers, the rest of which will dwarf BEV energy consumption for many years to come. Cleaning up the grid must be done whether or not there are BEVs on the road.�
May 21, 2014
Johan Excellent post! And a very, very good point you are raising. Just let this thing work it self out through economics and consumer preference. This is why Julian's attempt to put the searchlight on erraneous claims when the FCV consortiums apply for government grants (grants which Tesla have never gotten for building Superchargers).�
May 21, 2014
CalDreamin Not true, the different oil companies are not aligned on these issues. I realize it's popular to premise a sort of Big Oil Hive Mind or Big Oil Borg, but their track records don't support these simple assumptions. Show us where the CEO of ExxonMobil or Koch Industries stated anything like remotely like the following, let alone published an article:
One can certainly find quotes where the CEOs of some other oil companies stated essentially the opposite, as well as sharp disagreements among the different oil companies regarding efforts to stop climate change regulations.
The oil companies don't strongly support FCVs over BEVs. Some are against both technologies. Others have deferred to the many automotive and fuel cell experts within government research labs, environmental and regulatory agencies, academia, and the auto industry, who have been asserting for many years that hydrogen FCVs are the inevitable future.
I'm infinitely more qualified to comment on what I would do, and I know you're wrong on that point. I'm also pretty sure that the technical case against FCVs is undermined when one resorts to conspiracy theories.
I've read it. You appear to be mistaking discussion about a number of possible future scenarios with an agenda.�
May 21, 2014
Auzie The hazards of hydrogen are almost common knowledge, or to put it differently, anyone with some interest in the topic can easily gain understanding in the risks of having hydrogen on board cars. Therefore I find it difficult to believe that the executives of auto companies are unaware of these risks. If they truly believe that the future of the industry is in hfcv, what does that make them? Uninformed, irresponsible, ignorant? I doubt that they are either of these.
Agency problem is quite pervasive and more likely explanation.�
May 21, 2014
Robert.Boston There is on-going researcher about ways of storing hydrogen more safely than as a high-pressure gas: http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review13/st103_long_2013_o.pdf
Project objective: "Research and development of on-board systems that allow for a driving range greater than 300 miles. "�
May 21, 2014
Tedkidd So well put!!!�
May 21, 2014
qwk You are seriously going to believe what an oil company CEO says? Lol. Talk is cheap, actions speak louder than words....�
May 21, 2014
Dan5 Ok , off on a little tangent, but what if a hydrogen car hits road debris like the ones a few Tesla owners have hit?
Or what if some crazy owner decides to take a round about at a high speed in a hydrogen car around 2 AM and crashes?
Questions, questions.�
May 21, 2014
jerry33 I suspect that's what will finally kill off hydrogen cars--especially when the first collateral damage happens. The real problem will be when the fleet ages and the containers aren't so safe anymore.�
May 21, 2014
qwk That's why hydrogen will always be the future. Nobody is going to want to drive a bomb around after the first few explosions and deaths.
- - - Updated - - -
You beat me to it by 2 minutes. Lol�
May 21, 2014
yobigd20 Let me tell you why hydrogen cars will never succeed. Do you know what happens when hydrogen catches fire and explodes? Let me show you...
�
May 21, 2014
TEG Hydrogen Car Fire Surprise : EVWORLD.COM
---
Electricity makes more sense to me for a number of reasons including:
* Infrastructure to distribute electricity all over is already in place.
(It costs a lot to truck hydrogen supplies to filling stations, probably burning fossil fuels to do so.)
* Better overall efficiency.
(How much electricity/fuel was used to isolate the hydrogen, compress it, ship it around, etc.)
* Electricity can be created from a variety of sources.
* Less complexity.
(Fully electric cars don't need a fuel cell, fuel tank, etc.)�
May 21, 2014
CalDreamin Shell publicly opposed Proposition 23 that would have repealed California's climate change law, a proposition that was supported and largely funded by a number of other oil companies. That position resulted in this recent announcement. Several of the oil companies that supported Prop 23 don't even have operations in California.�
May 21, 2014
Auzie One of the possible reasons why people start raising the possibility of conspiracy theory (I am not a subscriber to it) is that it is so against the common sense and may I say foolish to promote fcvs and motivations behind such behaviour are so difficult to understand and accept. I can not accept ignorance as an explanation at these levels.�
May 21, 2014
DaveT Interesting article about Fiat's electric cars.
Fiat Chrysler CEO: Please dont buy Fiat 500e electric car - Yahoo Finance�
May 21, 2014
renim I don't, the regulations tend to be that non fixed, pressurised hydrogen storage needs to be hydrostaticly tested by an approved testing lab every 5 years. Ie these cyclinders will need to be removed and sent to a approved lab and validated every five years. Inconvenient yes, expensive yes, safe yes. Its the equivalent of having a recall legislated in, on a 5 yearly cycle.�
May 21, 2014
StapleGun From the article:
So a base 500e costs Fiat about $46,500 to make. The absolute base Model S goes for $69,900 (before tax credits), and assuming 20% margins (much lower than Tesla's average) it costs Tesla somewhere around $55,900 to build a base Model S.
* Non-electric version. The 500e has not been tested by NHSTA
Fiat 500e Tesla Model S Production Cost $46,500 $55,900 EPA Range 87 miles 208 miles Seating 4 5 Cargo Capacity 7 cu. ft. 26.3 cu. ft. 0-60 Time 9.1s 5.9 s Console image image NHSTA Safety Rating 4-star* 5-star**
** 5.3 stars
Tesla's competitive advantage is enormous right now.�
May 21, 2014
gg_got_a_tesla Sad really although I commend the CEO for being brutally honest.
I see so many 500e on the road here. They do look nice; the tailpipe ruins the otherwise symmetric look of the rear of the regular 500.
I test drove the 500e at the REFUEL races at Laguna Seca last year. It's a fun little car. Too bad their days are numbered.�
May 21, 2014
MikeL gg_ Tailpipe ruins the look of every car ! :smile: Seems to me Elon's plan to spur/encourage competition isn't going as planned, yet. The disruption Tesla is bringing will just have to dig deeper and cause more pain. They'll get it eventually.�
May 21, 2014
gg_got_a_tesla Yup. The knife's still making its way in. In a couple of years, it can be twisted!�
May 21, 2014
MikeL A lot of the hundreds of comments to that article (I made it thru a page or so) were favorable to Tesla - along the lines of - this guy is doing it, what's your problem ?!�
May 21, 2014
Tedkidd +1, any response?�
May 22, 2014
Julian Cox @CalDreaming
We are arriving at similar conclusions but I am sorry to say that I think it is important to take issue with some dangerously credulous assumptions you are making in your conspiracy theory theory.
"For many years, there has been a widespread belief among many government energy and environmental agencies, university and national laboratory experts, as well as many within the auto and energy industries that the future of sustainable transport involves hydrogen FCVs".
There is a fallacy of definition in this sentence. Sustainable yes, Environmentally Sustainable. No. The core NREL Fuel Cell commercial viability research is a Big auto and Big Oil consultancy project conducted by BP/Daimler, Chevron/Hyundai, GM/Shell, Ford/BP alongside SMR operators Air Products Inc. http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/pdfs/54860.pdf
There is one throw away little paragraph on the subject of emissions (Section 2.2.2) that DISPROVES the environmental benefits of FCVs by stating that this technology delivers 42mpg well to wheel pollution equivalence to a 21mpg car in the best case and on average 31.5mpg pollution equivalence for on-site SMR. This is for a bunch of super-low performance 134hp Hydrogen-HEVs that are handily beaten on emissions performance by gasoline-HEVs and destroyed on performance by any modern 21mpg car = false equivalence.
This false equivalence has ben leveraged wide open in the marketing of FCVs.
LOOK:
California Fuel Cell Partnership :
�The well-to-wheels reports show that hydrogen made from natural gas and used in a fuel cell vehicle reduces greenhouse gases (GHGs) by 55%-65% compared to gasoline used in a conventional vehicle, and by about 40% compared to gasoline in a hybrid engine.�
LOOK:
Hyundai
"the hydrogen fuel cell provides lower total well-to-wheel emissions than a battery electric vehicle. For the Tucson Fuel Cell driver, this social benefit is achieved with greater utility, versatility and without compromises."
This is called LIES.
LOOK who is falling for it over your head and on your behalf:
California Energy Commission
"Toyota, Honda, Hyundai and others have made long-term big investments in FCVs, and relatively less in BEVs, because they believe FCVs are future of sustainable transport. They would be knowingly setting their companies up for serious harm if they actually believed FCVs were doomed to fail and that BEVs are the future."
I am sorry to say that in this sentence you have set up a straw man.
They are not doing this despite the fact they believe they are doomed to fail. They clearly don't need to believe in it enough to take the risk on infrastructure costs - that needs to be borne by the rest of us by counting on the above LIES to usurp State and Federal environmental budgets by the $100s millions - but they are most definitely doing this to win by the destruction of BEVs in general and Tesla in particular.
I think this Hyundai Tucson FCV @ $499 per month and free hydrogen (given that it is apparently costing Hyundai $145,000 to build each one) ought to be the most ample warning of the market manipulation tactics Tesla is up against in 2015.
I have my own theories of what Musk has up his sleeve to turn this scam into a very painful loss for Big Auto, but meanwhile it is imperative in my view to take issue with government environmental funding pouring into a war chest to fight against the environment - and Tesla as target numero uno.
- - - Updated - - -
So far a simple acknowledgement. I also got a nice letter Phd from Aerovironment and a nice endorsement from a Harvard transportation professor.
Also getting seriously checked out on Linkedin by fuel cell guys - Ballard power etc.�
May 22, 2014
jerry33 Good luck on getting even 90% compliance on that.�
May 22, 2014
renim DOT 49 CFR 180.209 for hydrogen cylinders h2
nb honda clarity is about 170litre internal volume, so these would be 5 year re-qualification requirements. I don't know the penalty for non compliance.�
May 22, 2014
Auzie More likely leakage and explosion?:wink:�
May 22, 2014
renim by way of reference
2 conventional petrol midsize would be Nissan Atlima, Mazda 6 i-loop
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=34247&id=33906
Fueleconomy.gov rates Nissan as 285g/mile tail pipe and 72 g/mile upstream (357g/mile) WTW
Fueleconomy.gov rates Mazda iloop 275g/mile tail pipe and 71 g/mile upstream (346g/mile) WTW
from the NREL document page 27 http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/pdfs/54860.pdf
'The average WTW greenhouse gas emissions estimate for the Learning Demonstration fleet operating on hydrogen produced from on-site natural gas reformation was 356 g CO2-eq/mile'
brilliant, so a hydrogen fuel cell fleet is almost identical in CO2 emissions as a standard Nissan Altima, and is beat by a Mazda with i-loop
but isn't that obvious, hydrogen production and transportation is far more lossey than straight hydrocarbon use.�
May 22, 2014
Julian Cox Should also point out that a standard 2.5 Litre Nissan Altima is 182 hp 0~60 in 7.1 seconds.
That is 50% more powerful and 0~60 in 3.4 seconds or 47.9 % faster
Than a Toyota 2015 FCV. 122 hp 90KW O~60 10.5 Seconds.
Like for like it's also better that NREL's best case.
Probably the same would go for the Mazda too.
You can be quite certain that a 185hp Toyota FCV would not fare so favourably.�
May 22, 2014
dalalsid Going off the FCV topic for a moment. I just got lease pricing numbers for the BMW i3 and it is completely stupidly priced.
"Currently BMW has structured their leases to provide a $4875 credit to the lessee since any credit on a lease will return to the owner, or BMW Financial Services in this case. Under those terms and figuring annual mileage of 10k/year on a vehicle priced at $43,975, with a down-payment of $2,950, monthly lease payments would come to $513 with taxes and license fees in addition depending on state of registration."
That is triple my Leaf lease. Also BMW is eating part of the Federal Tax credit?�
May 22, 2014
ItsNotAboutTheMoney Aggressive leasing puts the credit all into payments (Volt, Leaf), passive pricing splits it between payments and purchase. Depends on the manufacturer.�
May 22, 2014
dalalsid I'm yet to see this passive pricing anywhere else. But the i3 might be temporarily pricing itself out of the market. I'm guessing they want to encourage people to buy and not lease. Maybe they thought it through and figured that people only want to lease until they can buy the Gen III Tesla.�
May 22, 2014
CalDreamin I believe the statement is correct in characterizing the motives behind FCV R&D, which has been on-going since the 1970's energy crises.
Agree the NREL demonstration testing indicates that 1st and 2nd gen FCVs in their test fleet aren't any breakthroughs in CO2 emissions per mile. The most efficient FCV in their fleet had an average WTW emissions of 237 g CO2e / mile using on-site SMR, and 222 g CO2e / mile using water electrolysis where the electricity source included "some renewable sources of electricity".
The EPA rates the WTW performance of the Prius at 222 g / CO2e / mile. So the most efficient FCV in the NREL test fleet using water electrolysis just matched the GHG emissions of a Prius. The Prius probably cost less than half what the FCV costs to purchase, is similar in size and performance, has greater range, and does not require a massive new multi-billion dollar fueling infrastructure to be constructed and supported.
The EPA rates the WTW emissions of the Tesla Model S 85 at 150 g CO2e / mile where I live in northern California, and 250 g CO2e / mile using the US national average electrical grid. So a larger, higher performance BEV charged from the US national grid is nearly as low in GHG emissions as the most efficient FCV in the NREL test fleet, and is substantially lower in GHG emissions using northern California's grid.
The EPA rates the WTW emissions of the Nissan Leaf at 120 g CO2e / mile where I live in northern California, and 200 g CO2e / mile using the US national grid. So the world's best-selling BEV has lower GHG emissions than the best FCV in NREL's demonstration test fleet.
FCVs have substantially lower GHG emissions if totally renewable sources are used to produce the hydrogen, and that's what's often premised when arguments are made for FCVs as sustainable transport. But if charged on totally renewable energy, BEVs have even lower WTW GHG emissions than FCVs. Also, a fully developed charging infrastructure for BEVs would be orders of magnitude less costly to build than a fully developed fueling infrastructure for FCVs.
Elon Musk was a little boy living in South Africa when FCV R&D started being seriously pursued by a number of automakers. I guess we have to agree to disagree on the motives behind FCVs.�
May 22, 2014
Familial Rhino I've no dog in this hunt, but it's perfectly possible that their motives have evolved since then.�
May 22, 2014
Newb @CalDreamin: I'm wondering where your motivation stems from to paint such a rosy picture of oil companies, but to discuss this issue would be way off-topic.
Just to make sure we talk about the same companies, let us start with a definition. Wikipedia�s definition of �Big Oil� lists the following companies:
BP plc (United Kingdom);
Chevron Corporation (United States);
ExxonMobil Corporation (United States);
Royal Dutch Shell plc (Netherlands and United Kingdom); and
Total SA (France).
Agreed? Okay, then let's discuss their agenda.
It's always easy to simply reject a claim by saying �no, they don�t�. Where�s your evidence or logical reasoning? It�s difficult to follow your arguments when you constantly mix up a company�s stance on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions with its stance on fuel cell cars. What I can prove is this: Big Oil DO strongly favour a FCV scenario over a pure-BEV scenario. Here's just a hint at the overwhelming evidence:
Please do some research on oil companies supporting charging infrastructure for BEVs. You won�t find a single news or publication that would prove that big oil companies have significantly invested in or supported battery electric cars or battery technology development or BEV charging infrastructure. In contrast, you will find plenty of evidence that big oil companies have been supporting and funding fuel cell cars development, hydrogen infrastructure and related actions for many years � and they are currently ramping up their investments. (just a very few links on that: http://evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=582 (Exxonmobil, 2001), http://books.google.de/books?id=_IFmUIRHNH8C&pg=SA10-PA8&lpg=SA10-PA8&dq=toyota+and+exxonmobil+fuel+cell&source=bl&ots=ZDYHDki-Eq&sig=vPtJJtDteFLfnM1wGIjYysJ16Tk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RjV-U5R_0q7sBqn9gPAG&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=toyota%20and%20exxonmobil%20fuel%20cell&f=false (about Toyota/GM agreements on FCV technology with Exxonmobil), http://investor.chevron.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=130102&p=irol-newsArticle_Print&ID=676776&highlight= (Chevron investing in H2 stations in Cal)
�I could go on with much more evidence on this forever. Big Oil CLEARLY strongly support FCVs over BEVs. And by the way, have you ever read about Big Oil investing in superchargers? Or Big Oil partnering with or sponsoring Tesla, Fisker, Detroit Electric? Have you ever seen ads funded or made by ExxonMobil promoting battery electric cars? But I reckon, many of us have seen such Big Oil ads promoting fuel cell cars....�
May 22, 2014
kenliles I think that's largely true and certainly to be expected given self-interest. I might point to one exception in Total ownership and capital funding of SunPower. I think there are some indications their self interest is bending by necessity to include the very technology that threatens to usurp their current endeavors. If they were smart, they would take that political lobby money and use it to capitalize divisions in alternative energy. As a group bough they're a long way from that seems to me. But if and when that happens, our investments in Solar/Tesla's of the world will soar indeed, as that is the culmination of tipping point�
May 22, 2014
Julian Cox @NewB
That Exxon link actually verges on the comical.
ExxonMobil Corporation Joins California Fuel Cell Partnership - EVWORLD.COM
I think they are going for the Guinness world record for the maximum number of energy conversions crammed into a single vehicle.
gasoline hydrogen battery hybrid.�
May 22, 2014
Newb Shell (and the other oil companies probably too) also has/had investments in alternative energy. But it is probably difficult for one of the big oil companies to become a electric utility company, which would mean Shell or Total or ExxonMobil would switch from selling gasoline to selling electricity - that wouldn't happen in the foreseeable future unless they take over electric utility companies. And as long as electricity is not one of the core "fuels" the big oil companies can produce & sell in large amounts, they will not favour a pure-BEV scenario, I would think.
Oh, speaking of Tesla competition - found this one on chargedevs:
Charged EVs | Toyota makes it official: Battery EVs stink, fuel cells rule
("Toyota makes it official: Battery EVs stink, fuel cells rule")
- - - Updated - - -
@Julian Cox:�
May 22, 2014
CalDreamin I'm trying to focus the argument against FCVs on technical arguments, and avoid attacks grounded in an alleged international conspiracy of liars in government agencies, national laboratories, academia, consulting groups, and industry. I suppose in doing so I should not be surprised that my own motivations are now publicly questioned.
Attacking motives is a distraction, requires speculation not grounded in facts, and in my opinion weakens the technical arguments against FCVs. Attacking motives is no doubt an effective tactic with the tens of millions of Americans who reflexively jump on conspiracy theory bandwagons, but it risks backfiring with those who strive to ground our conclusions on facts.
More than 1,000 electric-vehicle charging stations destined for Oregon's I-5 corridor by next summer | OregonLive.com
BP, Arco, Best Buy to install fast chargers for electric cars | Greenspace | Los Angeles Times
BP to Install EV Charging Ports - KickingTires
ExxonMobil Wins Innovation Award for Battery Separator Film Technology and Breaks Ground on New Film Plant
http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/~/media/The%20Lamp/2009/news_pub_lamp_2009-3.pdf
ExxonMobil and Electrovaya Launch Car Program in Baltimore | ExxonMobil News Releases</title>
Nissan and Showa Shell partner to test solar quick charge system
Shell Eco-marathon - Shell Global
http://www.mystore411.com/store/view/24785883/Electric-Vehicle-Charging-Station-Olympia
http://www.mystore411.com/store/view/24787662/Electric-Vehicle-Charging-Station-Phoenix
PlugShare - EV Charging Station Map - Find the nearest location to charge your electric car!
Superchargers are a private network owned and operated by Tesla. That said, one of the first Tesla Superchargers, at Harris Ranch, was on the site of a Shell gas station.
Tesla is partnering with Sinopec in China to build Supercharger stations.�
May 22, 2014
Runarbt
ROFL :-D
But to be fair, this is from 2001, and they planned to have a prototype in 18months... I figure someone realized this was crazy, and put an end to it before those 18 months had passed by.�
May 22, 2014
Newb Alright, I am surprised. There might be different coping strategies there, I have to admit. But most of the links you have posted are about "plans" or "intentions" to provide EV charging stations (e.g.: have they actually installed hundreds of charging stations at BP gas stations in Oregon yet?), or are single projects which can be regarded as part of a greenwashing strategy. (Greenwashing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
...and I also said "significantly invested"... spending millions of dollars in hydrogen infrastructure is quite a different thing, isn't it?�
May 22, 2014
kenliles Agree difficult and will be a long time if at all. That is part of the Total-SunPower scope though. Still early stages, but the utility scale solar projects SunPower is doing are targeted for a possible HoldCo at would in fact be a Utility owner operator. Very early, but it is starting to take some shape. Really wish these and other Big Oil would use their tremendous capital to accelerate this process. He world really needs that and at last the business case is now becoming very strong. The more this happens, he faster it makes Tesla direction the obvious solution placating he competitive directions. Let's hope!�
May 22, 2014
CalDreamin Plugshare shows EV charging stations at 91 BP stations, 25 Arco stations (Arco is a BP brand), 24 Exxon stations, 33 Mobil stations, and 171 Shell stations.�
May 22, 2014
Julian Cox
CalDramin
You are overthinking it.
Politicians and the public are being lied to about the environmental credentials of Fuel Cell Vehicles. There is no excuse for that.
Suggesting that they are lying with the best of intentions is ridiculous.
The motivation does not take a genius to figure out either, it is official US Government policy:
Energy Department Launches Public-Private Partnership to Deploy Hydrogen Infrastructure | Department of Energy
"Recent development of the United States� tremendous shale gas resources has not only helped directly cut electricity and transportation costs for consumers and businesses, but is also helping to reduce the costs of producing hydrogen and operating hydrogen fuel cells."
Consumers demand green sustainable transport that delivers a solution to climate change.
In the case of hydrogen the auto industry is telling consumers what they want to hear.
Except that
1. It is a lie.
2. We end up pouring $billions of green energy funding into SMR - that's fraud.
3. We will end up with hydrogen based on SMR in investment ETFs - that's fraud.
That's just the money side. I don't know better than anyone else what it means to keep shoving CO2 PPM past the 402ppm mark, all I do know is that I don't subscribe to risking it and I definitely don't subscribe to taxpayers and voters being disenfranchised of the opportunity to decide by a 100% dishonest promotion of policies to pursue hydrogen.
Fact natural gas is cheap and oil is expensive but natural gas is dirty and gets dirtier per mile when you waste lots of energy converting it to hydrogen. Maybe we go bust if we don't use natural gas regardless. - That decision has been made without consultation by a group of industries that consider their interests to be synonymous with the interests of "the economy" and therefore in it is everyone else's job to serve themselves up as consumers for natural gas whether we like it or not. Environmental objections are a problem for the marketing department to deal with.
If it succeeds in the objective of derailing renewable powered electric transportation and that's the difference between resource wars or climate stability - it's genocide.
How do you imagine that should be sugar coated so that objections should be taken more seriously?
For heaven's sake this an assault on the public interest with the fraudulent use of public funds - by the $billions.�
May 22, 2014
Tedkidd I disagree. Everything he/she has written is really well thought and laid out. All the ideas reconcile elegantly.
Strategically, everyone can't be bad cop or rabid extremists, or all you get is deadlock. Having some good cops that diligently avoid ad hominem, or even appearance of falling into low debate, is crucial.
All the rest I agree with completely:
�
May 23, 2014
AustinPowers +1 Somehow Julian seems like he is on a crusade, sorry to say. Don Quijote comes to mind as well.
While I agree with his motives in general, I find any allusions to some kind of conspiracy/big plan by Big Auto / Big Oil (as if such a thing even exisited - sure "big" oil companies will think alike, sometimes even form alliances, but in general they will - just like any carmaker - try to do business as effective and profitable as possible on their own) to destroy BEVs/Tesla as completely far-fetched.
I am sure anyone will agree that BMW and Renault (among others) are part of "Big Auto" as Julian will define it. So these companies have invested billions of Euros in BEV cars just for fun, or to see them fail???? BMW has also invested heavily in FCV cars (as a matter of fact, the first hydrogen prototypes I ever got to know of were BMWs), but do you see a BMW Hydrogen 7 in the current lineup or an i3 / i8 ?�
May 23, 2014
Auzie I agree with you that conspiracy theory is highly unlikely. Conspiracy would be akin to getting bunch of cats to cooperate, good luck with that.:smile:
I distrust car makers efforts to make good bevs. Their resources far exceed Tesla's resources. They have plenty of expertise, human and other capital, yet they make bev cars that do not sell. They seem to be making bevs for compliance reasons.�
May 23, 2014
bsd Tesla competition developments
Julian,
People don't realize that FCVs just transfer emissions to a different part of the cycle. I certainly didn't realize the extent until I read your analyses. We have a double-whammy here in Canada that most hydrogen is produced in Quebec and then shipped across the country. But...
... I completely agree with CalDreamin. You're including a set of strawman arguments or appeals to conspiracy that are unnecessary. These rhetorical sleights of hand are a turn off for some (like me) but also provides ammunition to those seeking to spread FUD to encourage others to dismiss your views.
When I reviewed papers for academic conferences and journals, text like your ridiculous Japanese revenge tirade would have led to the immediate rejection of your paper. It marks you as a loony and calls into question everything else you say.
No they don't. Some consumers do, but for many (most) it's secondary to the costs.
If you replace "want" with "need" then I'd agree.
If you want your text to make a difference, you remove any barriers so that opponents can raise uncertainty or doubt as to its credibility.
The best academic papers, the ones referenced for years, clearly separate their data from analysis, and then separately draw conclusions. It means your data can live on, even when new data is found that repudiates your analysis and conclusions. It means people can disagree with your conclusions but still use your data and analysis. It mean you can point naysayers to to your data and ask for them to provide better numbers with sources.
You had two theses: that there is a conflict of interest, and that FCVs are not the clean-emissions solution portrayed. The conflict of interest is only pertinent to California; it's not something I'd want to forward to the Minister of Industry or the Minister of the Environment. The FCV analysis is pertinent much more broadly.
Edited: removed a line that was harsher than I meant, and moved a but�
May 23, 2014
Pollux Hi, @AustinPowers,
I find myself agreeing with the part of your post essentially implying that more evidence is required before asserting that there are Big Oil conspiracies to destroy BEVs. Much that looks like conspiracy can ultimately be traced to individuals and organizations acting in isolation out of pure self-interest. There *are* and *have been* significant corporate conspiracies (e.g., computer memory pricing, computer LCD pricing) but such allegations require significant evidence, usually of a non-mathematical kind, to establish proof.
Having said that, I'd argue that Julian is indeed on a crusade and that's a fine thing. Pursuing big goals usually requires big passion. Julian's arguments look well-reasoned to me, and if his digressions on various actors' motivations were simply shuffled into another thread, the entire discussion here would be pretty straightforward. Either Julian's numbers add up or they don't. Either he has taken into account all the necessary WTW factors or he hasn't. Anyone wanting to argue in favor of the benefits of a hydrogen-based transportation system will have to show flaws either in Julian's assumptions or his calculations. It's good work. That his work is driven by passion is also a wonderful thing to behold. I think his basic arguments will be better spread amongst various parties -- whether it's this forum, CARB, or elsewhere -- by focusing on the fundamental physics of energy transfer and pollution output rather than diving into conspiracy allegations that are much harder to prove and for which many people will demand a very high standard of proof.
In short: crusade -- OK. Argument (or rant, depending on the eye of the beholder) about conspiracy -- better off in a separate thread, and (IMHO) at best not helpful in discussions with regulatory authorities and at worst used by opponents as a way to dismiss the hard-core analysis and the individual behind them.
Thanks,
Alan
P.S. Right now, Julian's my hero, and I bet that's true in whole or in part not only for the many readers of this thread but also for those who are trying to gently nudge him away from the occasional wild remark that injures the overall presentation of his thesis. I am glad for his analysis and just as glad that he's engaging CARB with his results. He's doing the hard work while the rest of us just kibbitz. I find myself forwarding his work to many others... although not the Japanese comparison.�
May 23, 2014
Julian Cox Thank you to those above for the constructive intent to improve upon persuasiveness of presentation.
This needs some very careful thought.
The facts as I see it.
Fossil fuels = emissions problem
EVs/renewables = solution to problem
Hydrogen FCVs are most definitely the fossil fuel solution to the solution, and the success case for FCVs is to maintain the problem.
FCVs serious competitive threat with horrible outcomes all round not because it is any good, but because it can be used to blur the boundaries between fossil fuels and the solution to fossil fuels. That is exactly what is being leveraged here and it is working.�
May 23, 2014
Familial Rhino I agree with this. It's very thorny, I think, because public perception and behaviour are disproportionately influenced by what people experience at the interface with a product or technology. "Bad stuff" may be happening in order to bring things to market, but when it happens completely out of sight, it just doesn't feel real. It's the same with the Canadian oil sands, industrial meat production, cotton child labour practices, etc. Even if you make people aware of these things, most might become somewhat concerned, but only in the abstract. In practice, the general public always goes with whatever makes immediate economic sense for them, leaving the thorny issues to "the scientists", who are always going to find a fix "eventually".
The key here is that FCV technology allows the inherent dirtiness of the process to be kept out of people's sight. For them, it looks, feels, and smells clean. Look at the tailpipe, it's just water vapour!
It doesn't help that if you type Fuel Cell in Google, all you get is "the future is here and it is green" type of articles. I must say I had no idea that fuel cells were so bad when added all up, until I read your posts (and I think of myself as being relatively well-informed.)
(btw, kudos for responding the way you did to the constructive observations of others.)�
May 23, 2014
AustinPowers @bsd: I completely agree with your post.
@Pollux: as I said, I am very much in favor of Julian's goal, but like bsd, CalDreamin etc. I think that he did himself some disservice with the way of his wording and some out of place remarks like the aforementioned Japanese revenge remarks.
Kudos to Julian otoh for his passion and his taking up a stance against what he sees as a threat to real sustainable means of transportation.�
May 24, 2014
Auzie Another one bites the dust
The views expressed by Fiat Chrysler CEO may represent the state of Tesla competition in bev space for the next few decades.
Fiat Chrysler CEO: Please don't buy Fiat 500e electric car
"I hope you don't buy it because every time I sell one it costs me $14,000," "I'm honest enough to tell you that."
The gasoline-powered Fiat 500 starts at almost $17,300 including delivery charges, while the 500e starts at $32,650 before federal tax credits. Consumers are not willing to pay a price that covers Fiat's costs so it loses money on the 500e.
"I will sell the (minimum) of what I need to sell and not one more," Marchionne said of the 500e.
Chrysler filed for bankruptcy in 2009 and received a U.S taxpayer-funded bailout. Italy's Fiat took over the U.S. automaker at the time and completed the buyout earlier this year.
"If we just build those vehicles, we'll be back asking ... in Washington for a second bailout because we'll be bankrupt," Marchionne said of electric cars.
The state of California's zero-emission vehicle mandates and federal fuel efficiency requirements for 2025 were pushing the need for electric cars, but Marchionne said he would prefer the U.S. Department of Energy simply set targets and let the automakers achieve them in their own way. Marchionne said for the company in 2025 to maintain the same type of U.S. sales mix it has now, hybrid vehicles that are powered by both gasoline and electric engines will make up more than half if not close to three-quarters of sales.�
May 24, 2014
Auzie Sorry this isn't working for me any more, we need to separate, but plse stay in touch
Toyota wants to keep R&D ties with Tesla
"Tesla has quite a clear business strategy for developing a better battery," said Osamu Nagata, president and CEO of Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America. "[Automakers] as well as suppliers need to work on developing better batteries."
He made the comments to journalists before he was scheduled to receive an annual leadership award on Thursday from the Society of Automotive Engineers Foundation.
Jim Lentz, CEO of Toyota�s North American region, said Toyota sees battery-electric vehicles as viable only in select circumstances such as shorter distances -- from the office to the train, or home to the train -- as well as for use on large corporate campuses.
Lentz said Toyota believes there are better alternatives, such as hybrids and plug-in hybrids, and eventually, fuel cells, for long-range travel needs.�
May 24, 2014
Auzie Way to go
Ford's CMO
Way to go. There�s a lot to appreciate. All of us in the car business want everyone to love the driving experience. The experimentation on the distribution model, how they sell and service the products�it�s fantastic. For us as an industry, electrification of the powertrain is one of the most fundamental changes, along with the mobile economy. We�re all experimenting. Last month we sold 3,500 plug-ins. Not battery-electrics or hybrids, but plug-ins. We�re about 35 percent of the U.S. market. That�s exciting.�
May 24, 2014
ggies07 Good for Ford. But I think this thread needs a title change because it seems there will be no competition for years. Hahaha. Nissan is the closet thing and until they get there 2nd generation LEAF out they are not in the same league as Tesla.�
May 24, 2014
rcc
If you start out branding the FCV backers as liars, you lose a huge amount of credibility and look like a raving lunatic. Especially since it's likely that your wrong. Most people who "lie" about stuff like this do so unintentionally. It's like the old joke about the difference between a used car salesman and a computer salesman: the used car salesman knows he's lying.
So here's the facts as I see it:
- EV/renewables = solution to the problem if and only if long-range travel with EVs is practical.
- That means >200 mile range. 100 mile range EVs require building too many fast-chargers and require drivers to take too many breaks when travelling to be appealing.
- That also means that the someone needs to build enough EV high-speed charging infrastructure for long-range travel for it to hit critical mass.
- To guarantee success, the EV company needs to be able to fund building the high-speed charging infrastructure itself.
- Auto companies (and for that matter, most people) don't think like this so they don't believe EVs are a practical solution.
- If it weren't for Tesla, the only EVs on the road would be short-ranged city-car EVs which are useless as a mass-market replacements for fossil-fuel cars.
- Ergo, if it weren't for Tesla, you could make the same argument about EVs that you're making against FCVs - that EV backers are liars and frauds and that all the money being poured into EVs was a total waste.
Yet we have Tesla today and Tesla is demonstrating that EVs can be a practical replacement a fossil fuel car.
It's remotely possible that investment in FCV technology could make FCVs a better proposition just as investment in EVs and improvement in battery technology is making EVs a practical solution. If the government hadn't been willing to loan money to EV companies, Tesla would have died before the Model S made it to market.
So my suggestion is you separate out the practicality and appeal of EV and FCVs into two separate issues. You can possibly convince someone that FCVs don't make sense given today's tech. You can possibly convince someone that EVs do make sense. Your odds of convincing the same person at the same time that both are true is very low.
And when bashing FCV's, as the previous poster suggested, put your data into one place, put your analysis in a second place and leave off speculating about motivations because when you do that, you are likely to lose any and all credibility that your data and your analysis may have gained you.
And FWIW, while not a researcher today, I was trained as an academic researcher and long ago was on the Program Committee (the people who pick the papers that get selected) of one of the top conferences in my area of research.�
May 24, 2014
qwk A simple physics course will tell one that your comparison is silly. We use batteries in everyday life without having to worry about leveling a small town when something goes wrong. Hydrogen accidents are a different story. Have you ever seen a propane tank explode? Well, that is childs play compared to hydrogen.�
May 24, 2014
RobStark Sure investing billions of dollars can lower the cost of FCEVs but basic science literacy tells you that they will never be more cost effective than ICE or BEV nor a better technology from a green perspective. GM,Toyota,Honda, Daimler,BMW et al results after investing billions over the past three decades demonstrate this.
FCEV are always 15-20 years in the future of becoming practical.
According to Elon Musk this is a lie. Daimler money saved Tesla from bankruptcy in 2008. Department of Energy money quickened the production of Model S. It is possible even likely without Daimler investment that Tesla's financials would be too weak for the DoE to make loans to Tesla.�
May 24, 2014
Julian Cox
I cannot be bothered to trawl through the flaws in this rant.
Suffice to say, you lost all credibility with me. Thanks for playing.�
May 24, 2014
Dan5 I think if we really want to get at the crux of the FCV vs EV arguement; the ZEV credits must be analyzed.
For starters the question comes up as to why fuel cells get 9 credits vs EVs getting a maximum of 7.
Secondly the entire purpose of the ZEV credit is for lower emissions correct and to remove ourselves from multiple sources of tailpipe emisisons.
Fairly recently the CARB board decreased the ZEV credits for Tesla from 7 to 4 I believe and if they want to get the full 7 retroactively they have to document how often the quick swap stations are used.
That is fine and dandy. The car is capable of it, but if no one uses it is kind of pointless.
Now we get the the FCV vehicles. Why would you give them 9 credits vs an EV getting 7 credits?
Secondly; Since Tesla has to "jump through hoops" so to speak with regards to the quick swap charging stations and document how often they are used I think it would be completely fair and balanced to also ask the FCV backers to track where the hydrogen is coming from (NG steam reforming) or electrolysis.
Since Tesla got knocked down to 4 despite the technology being present, but not utilized, the same standard should be held when it comes to hydrogen vehicles. They should get 3 CARB credits until they can show that the hydrogen is completely coming from renewable sources to make the hydrogen. Sounds fair and logical right?�
May 24, 2014
PonoBill I don't quite get why this is such a heated issue. RCC's comments seem cogent and reasonable. FCV is a rational technology that may eventually become practical. Hydrogen as a fuel has some promise. It's not really true that hydrogen explosions make propane look like child's play. You need a Stoichiometric mix of hydrogen to oxygen to have an explosion, and that's hard to do by accident. Generally it just burns, or even more frequently just escapes since it's so light a permeates so quickly. The pictures of the Hindenburg burning are commonly flashed around, but Hydrogen burns with a nearly invisible blue flame. The H2 was certainly zooming to the upper atmosphere as soon as the bags punctured. The orange flames must be the shellacked fabric skin.
Anyway, I don't understand the fanboy attitude. I love Lipo batteries. I hope we see the true potential realized--for smartgrids (perhaps more important than EVs), for smartgrids partially composed of EV's, for off-grid solutions not requiring lead. For my recumbent trike and my quadcopters, and my wife's SP85+, but I'd like to see competing technology go as far as it can. The premise seems to be that there can only be one winner, and we've lived with that for the last hundred years. Time to have a lot of eggs in the basket.
Asking why political spoils are distributed unevenly is a waste of perfectly good bytes. It certainly has nothing to do with rationality or logic.�
May 24, 2014
qwk Hydrogen is not only much less safe that batteries, it takes much more energy to make from renewable sources than charging a battery. This is extremely unlikely to change. It makes absolutely no sense to pursue hydrogen for passenger vehicles. Nobody is being a fanboy here, they simply understand that we are bound by certain physical rules on this planet.�
May 24, 2014
TSLAopt +1000
people do not like change, there has to be something compelling for them personally to go through a change to FCVs. Tesla provides a compelling electric car product that is superior in many ways to ICE competition in the same price range.
faster, smoother, more convenient, safer, superior technology (I.e. iPad console, 3G connectivity, etc.)
1)WHO is going to produce a "compelling" FCV? One that is superiors for the buyer more than just thinking it's better for the environment
2)In WHAT WAYS will the FCV car be compelling?
smoother ride? Faster acceleration? Better handling? Lower maintenance? safer? more convenient in some way? Better technology?
when you think about the above it is obvious that FCVs are a huge fail for the foreseeable future.�
May 24, 2014
bsd CARB ZEV is an instance of the false BEV/FCV equivalence problem as being played out in California. It's not the crux of the argument, but the distortions does stand to (wrongfully) benefit many.�
May 24, 2014
Julian Cox This started life as a thread about competitive developments to Tesla.
Call me a nutcase but I think a combination of most every major car manufacturer lead by the largest (Toyota) and backed to the tune of $billions by a government hell bent on replacing foreign oil with domestic fracking at the expense of renewables, and oceans of dishonest 'FCVs are green' propaganda and misleading 'green' marketing for c75% subsidised frackmobiles rushed to market with free hydrogen to coincide with Tesla's Gen III unveiling...
Looks like a competitive development to me.
If it was not a complete consumer and environmental fraud I would be concerned. The fact that it is makes me very concerned.
BTW, I think FCVs will be the fiasco of the 21st Century and it will hasten the demise of old auto - but I think there is a role to play in ensuring that Tesla suffers the least injustice and as few environmentally concerned consumers are duped and bought as is humanly possible. $billions in public funds misdirected from environmental benefit to hydrogen fuelling infrastructure @ 356g CO2 per mile is wrong.
That is what I think about that.�
May 24, 2014
rcc As for long-term competition, I think one of two scenarios will happen:
1) FCVs will be like the LNG vehicles. A few here and there near where governments have paid for fueling stations. I'd guess the odds here are about 98%.
2) FCV tech develops to the point where it might be a viable alternative to fossil fueled cars. Not likely in my opinion because even if the tech develops, the cars won't sell unless the cost of the fueling stations also drops enough that private industry builds out a lot of stations. Alternative cars without alternative fueling infrastructure won't sell.
So I don't see FCV's as a significant threat to Tesla.
I doubt FCV's will have real impact on auto maker finances because no matter what they say now, I don't think the business case will ever make sense for the auto companies. They'll never believe they can make enough money of them. They'll sink money into R&D and maybe put out a model or two but that's pennies to them.
They're talking a good game on FCV's now because they think can eventually make money off FCV's if someone else builds out the fueling infrastructure. Whereas they simply don't understand how they could ever make money selling EVs even though Tesla is clearly doing it. They don't understand that the FCV fueling infrastructure is so expensive that no one will build enough of it to matter.
It's a chicken-and-egg problem. Plenty of companies would build fueling stations if enough cars were on the road. But the cars won't hit the road in large numbers unless the fueling infrastructure looks like it will be there. And the governments won't build enough to make a difference. Tesla gets around this problem because they only need a handful of superchargers to hit critical mass, they're cheap enough that Tesla can afford the build out, and Tesla is demonstrating they will do the buildout.
Put another way, Tesla probably needs fewer superchargers to cover the US than FCV's need fueling stations just to cover the SF Bay Area.
In other words when it comes to FCVs and EVs, I think the auto companies are incompetent, not dishonest.
This is the typical pattern when established companies are confronted with hugely disruptive technologies and business models. They just don't get it. You can literally walk into the executive boardroom, show them precisely how they're going to be disrupted and why and most of them still won't get it. And the few that do won't be able to change their companies fast enough to make a difference because too many of their middle managers and top designers, engineers and architects won't get it.
As a comment on my so-called rant, ok, I take back my comment about the DOT loan making a huge difference. I remember the interview and I'll agree that Tesla probably would have made it without the loan - just would have taken longer.
But if you replace "govt loan" with "govt support", I stand by what I said. Tesla benefited in a major way from government support. ZEV credits in CA. Solo driving in the HOV lane in CA. >$7500 in tax credits ($10K total in CA). It all adds up.�
May 24, 2014
Tedkidd Julien, looks like you have us all supporting you. Are you up for a revision? One that follows the outline proposed by BSD:
And consider this quote as you edit. John F. Kennedy said:
The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived and dishonest--but the myth--persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
People in comfortable jobs, passionless or out of their depth due to Peter principle, simply can't see what you see. Stupid and incompetent is both too common in government and is not a crime. But rubbing stupids nose in his own incompetence may not get momentum headed in the direction we all want.�
May 24, 2014
PonoBill Superior safety is an assumption--not an outlandish one, but the perils of Hydrogen have been grossly overstated in what I've read herein, and a lot depends on the storage approach. But it's absolutely not true that it takes less energy to charge a battery than to make hydrogen. Most of the hydrogen generation approaches are in the 60-80 percent range for efficiency. Renewable sources is immaterial--most electricity is generated from thermal sources--coal and natural gas--and the pro-rated efficiency of those sources is less than 50 percent. Add wheeling looses and the efficiency of battery charging and charging a battery is NOT more efficient.
Don't misunderstand me, I'm convinced EV is the superior approach, but nothing is gained with inflated counterclaims.�
May 24, 2014
Auzie I agree with most of your statements and I fail to see any rant.
The statements that I disagree with is :
1."In other words when it comes to FCVs and EVs, I think the auto companies are incompetent, not dishonest."
There is no evidence of that and is unlikely in my view.
2. "This is the typical pattern when established companies are confronted with hugely disruptive technologies and business models. They just don't get it. You can literally walk into the executive boardroom, show them precisely how they're going to be disrupted and why and most of them still won't get it. And the few that do won't be able to change their companies fast enough to make a difference because too many of their middle managers and top designers, engineers and architects won't get it."
Imo it is more likely that they do get it. If we can get it, most other people that are interested in the issue can also get it. There is very little that they can do about it, except prolong their business life. It does not make business sense for them to enter ev space as that would significantly shorten the life of their core business and expertise, which is not ev but ice. It would also significantly add to their costs, affecting their results. Their decisions are rational and make economic sense from their perspective.�
May 25, 2014
Julian Cox
FCVs are fossil fuel cars.
That is the issue.
Can absolutely assure you that the hydrogen ions ware part of exactly the same fossilised driad or whatever other fossil donated the carbon ion in the methane recovered by fracking and sadly one does not come out of the ground without the other and more besides.�
May 25, 2014
renim there are people who unwittingly perform the role of Useful Idiot for the fossil fuel industrys when they envision a future of renewable energy being used for H2 cars.�
May 25, 2014
Tedkidd Severe Issues with Fuel Cell Vehicle GHG Emissions Claims and Hydrogen Refueling Infrastructure Grants | CleanTechnica
Maybe it'll go viral...
And another interesting article:
Is Californias Public Utilities Commission Complicit in a Cover-up?�
May 25, 2014
Krugerrand I'm going to agree with the poster your disagreeing with. :biggrin: They don't get it. Or maybe a better way to say it is that they don't 'believe it'. There is plenty they could do if they got it/believed it. The most logical step would be to start a new division of their company - perhaps in one of those already closed down, or about to close down factories - and pull a few people from their workforce who show interest, aptitude, understanding, talent etc... for EVs and hire the rest. Give them a budget, a time frame and tell them to go at it. If they once produced the car, they'd sell the car, and be on their way.�
May 25, 2014
PonoBill Established companies are held to a different standard by their stockholders. They have to continue making money. If Tesla made big profits right now any wise investor would bail, assuming they are under-investing in market share and development. I wouldn't assume people running large companies don't understand the disruptive changes and are too stupid to respond to them. They can't respond in the same way--their shares would plummet, the unions would pummel them, their dealers would revolt. Very hard to turn a big ship. Much easier to start off heading in the new direction, which is what startups do. Not all roses for the startups either. Tesla wouldn't be here without bailouts and subsidies. That's fine--it's necessary.
- - - Updated - - -
From a PR standard, the big companies may be better off wrapping themselves around technologies that are more exotic than EVs. They don't have to produce anything for a long time--they're working on the hard stuff, not the shortsighted EV direction. They are unlikely to be able to profitably produce an alternative fuel vehicle for a very long time--if ever. The loaded Chevy Volt that my wife owns in Maui had a sticker price of $46K, we paid $36. GM looses $50K on each one they sell. So that's a 90K car at breakeven, $150K with some kind of margin. I assume capital costs are wrapped up in that 50K loss somewhere, so it's a bit bogus, but I think it's kind of obvious why the big car makers "don't get it". They cant afford to get it.�
May 25, 2014
Julian Cox "If your only tool is a hammer, pretty soon every problem starts to look like a nail that needs pounding".
In my opinion, Big Auto has for many years looked upon the business of selling cars as an issue for the marketing department.
As they look at themselves they look at others. Elon Musk, Tesla - great use of the catch phrase global warming and climate change to sell cars! How come we did not think of that marketing innovation?
I saw the same thing in the battery business. As soon as we had developed and stabilised a 30C discharge Lithium Ion chemistry and dialled in a cell-matching protocol, next think you know, the Chinese had re-written the labels on their products to say 30C. They copied the marketing without a pause to think about developing a product that merited it.�
May 25, 2014
ItsNotAboutTheMoney No, Julian, that's not the issue. While AGW plays a part in CARB's decision-making, their primary job is to improve air quality and to do that, they want an overall solution that applies to all transportation, including the trucking industry that's responsible for some of the worst-polluted areas. It's important for people to understand that CA has very severe pollution issues, with the majority of the 10 most heavily polluted cities in the USA. They would be really happy to move all transportation to methane, so it's pointless to complain that HFCV uses fossil fuels, just in a different way.
In my view, the focus should be on reevaluation of the benefits of the long-range BEV model, with greater recognition that the ability to charge at home dramatically reduces the need for OTR refueling, which then allows for greater tolerance of longer, but reasonable, refueling times. As a result, long-range BEVs should be credit with fast refueling ability as long as the network supports long-distance travel with a reasonable charge:drive ratio, which includes demonstrated control of contention. The indirect benefits of BEV in terms of renewable energy and investment in battery technology could act as supporting arguments, but aren't essential to the argument.�
May 25, 2014
Familial Rhino The thing is, not every rational decision is automatically a good decision. Every decision they make may be perfectly valid in their version of reality, but when the premises are flawed, those choices won't actually serve them well in the long run. As an engineer, I've dealt with rational management making bad decisions too many times to believe that smart, well-meaning people acting in their best interest is all it takes to move the ship in the right direction. The big assumption here is that their understanding of the environment is accurate, and it's not.
One reason is that most of management doesn't have a good, direct understanding of the engineering issues, so they have to rely on advice from below. If they're any good, they'll look for, and receive, multiple competing opinions. Then they'll take that information and interpret it in a much larger context; the technical content will comprise only a small percentage of the inputs they'll use for decision making. But things like "will we make our numbers this quarter", "I'm on record saying that this will never work and I'll look like a fool if I change course", "I'm five years from retirement and I don't need to rock the boat", "global warming is a canard pushed by those whose politics I disagree with", and similar, will dominate their thinking. In the end, out of all that complicated and contradictory information they got from their engineers, they're gonna pick what they need to reach the conclusions they wanted from the beginning.
Incumbents HATE change. So yes, their decisions may be rational and in what they perceive to be their best interest, but because most often they operate from invalid assumptions, and because their individual interests don't necessarily align with those of the company, those decisions are wrong.
This is one of the main reasons I invest in Tesla. Elon Musk's interests are perfectly aligned with Tesla's. Most importantly, he also has the vision and the technical chops allowing him to make strategic decisions that sales-driven management boards full of MBAs are fundamentally incapable to conceive. They really don't get it (most of them.)�
May 25, 2014
Julian Cox
While it is not really for me to take a debate here. First thing. I will produce a more useful piece that consolidates that data that anyone who is primarily interested in the environment can use to deal with the misdirection on this topic, whether a consumer under assault from false advertising or an investor under assault on falsely comparative environmental claims.
Secondly, the long piece that I wrote to the CEC has been up for 'peer review'. It has gained endorsement from a Harvard professor, the CTO of Aerovironment wrote to me at length commending it and confirming the central math on hydrogen and despite the Executive Director of the California Fuel Cell Partnership Catherine Dunwoody befriending me on Linkedin (and getting checked out by California Hydrogen Business Council) and a debate with someone on co-processing H2S from fracking, someone pointing out that some EU milage figures needed to be fixed (correct) and tightening up the well to wheel figures for gasoline (NREL standard car is 23mpg, not 21) - all of the central tenants of the work stand. I think sufficiently to call it fact.
It is most certainly the case that CaFCP (including Dunwoody herself) as well as FCV promotors on both fuel and vehicle side are absolutely determined to sell FCVs as not just good for the local air quality (no issue with that) but a benefit to head-off global warming / climate change as a superior alternative to EVs - that is false. IMO it is as wrong as wrong ever gets in this world - if one were for a moment to accept as fact that fossil-fuel driven climate change is an inbound extinction event, trying to derail and undermine efforts to tackle it by deception on a massive scale for short term gain is IMO genocidally wrong. I have my own reasons to be particularly sensitive to the issue - I have had a hugely beneficial global business and a precursor to EVs utterly trashed by fraud orchestrated by vested interests and I recognise the signs as though it were yesterday.
Winning in the energy market is very different to any other form of winning in Silicon Valley. IT and Internet business is to a much greater extent a meritocracy in which the best product and the fastest consistent visionary innovator basically wins most of the time. Energy is not always like that, very often far from it, the good guys generally lose to the bad guys. The Tesla dream is also my own dream on a very personal level and if I can contribute something small or large to defending it with the truth from something pretty darn vile then I am glad to contribute what I can. That fight is not TMC or with each other here - it's out there.�
May 25, 2014
Tedkidd Fantastic! Future iterations could have that peer review in the prefix. That would make it even more compelling!
Again, the rest is nicely written and maybe good practice, but preaching to the choir.
My business was put out when NY HPwES program instituted "cost effectiveness" requirements that required we lie or leave. Our founding mission was to perform accurate modeling, so we left. (This was a difficult and painful decision. Had we had a dozen employees and their families counting on us, I'm not sure we could have taken the high road.)
In NY case the problem may have been more one of politicians and bureaucrats who didn't understand complex connections between numbers. I believe the connection between project cost effectiveness minimums and overt pressure to overstate savings to consumers was not understood rather than intentional.
For those interested, I've published those conversations with NYSERDA & NY contractors - Energy Efficiency Specialists - Do more with less: JUNE CONTRACTOR UPDATE: Trust, Truth, Transparency�
May 25, 2014
roblab I disagree with you. My experience shows that CARB works hand in hand with big auto and big oil, and gives out legislation that mollifies those entities. The reason we STILL have some of the worst air is that CARB is bought and paid for in the lobbies of California government and will not move to make rules that actually stop some of the silliness.
Case in point: All the numerous and confusing little chrome bits on the cars to proclaim them "green" so they will sell, when in actuality they do next to nothing. FlexFuel, when no one uses it, PZEV, ZREV, PHEV, etc. to get buyers to think they have something like EV in them. Explain to me what a "Partial Zero EV" is. I'll tell you. It's a standard Subaru with a slightly larger catalytic converter. And they get points to sell them from CARB as something "green". It is play acting. It's false advertising.
They are doing the very same thing with FCEV. Board members of CARB belong to Fuel Cell Partnership, right along side of all the big auto makers and fossil fuel suppliers. When an issue comes up, they argue over how to make it look good. The BEVs are a real threat to both of those entities, and they are trying to shut them down. There is no conspiracy. This is simple business. CARB tried to get Tesla off of the ZEV credits until people started complaining about it. They don't want everyone on methane. They want to make the BIG lobbyists and tax payers happy.
Trucks could easily be, and are, treated entirely different from passenger vehicles.�
May 25, 2014
erha Aren't we getting a bit off topic here. What about making an own thread for Julian Cox' fuel cell letter?�
May 25, 2014
stopcrazypp I have to correct this part. PZEV means Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle (nothing to do with EV as in electric vehicle). It means there are no evaporative emissions from the fuel system and it's also a SULEV (super ultra-low emissions vehicle, 90% less emissions than equivalent conventional gasoline vehicle). These type of vehicles do have a real world contribution to reducing smog as it has much lower smog related emissions (which was what CARB was first created to control, the GHG/CO2 control only came later).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_zero-emissions_vehicle�
May 25, 2014
pz1975 Probably easiest just to change the title of this thread as it really only has the one subject now. Plus there is a new thread for EV competition.�
May 25, 2014
Auzie Few points of different interpretation:
Every version of reality is perfectly valid to the perceiver. Something that might appear flawed to one perceiver may be quite real to another. I try not to pass a moral judgement on people (engineers and managers) for choosing and supporting a reality in which they survive.
The question "will we make our numbers this quarter" is often a survival question and if people do not make their numbers they do not have a job. I also do not look forward to a change that puts me out of a job.
I expect our beloved baby Tesla
That is how I see it, people or businesses are just doing their best to survive, and often in that fight for survival they get pitted against each other.
If a business is damaging to society then society has to fight back, it is unlikely that the business will voluntarily self destruct for the benefit of human kind.�
May 25, 2014
Familial Rhino We're not disagreeing at all.�
May 25, 2014
Auzie There is also thread Tesla-Articles-by-Julian-Cox in this section, so it might be an idea if all posts related to Julian's letter get moved there where they rightfully belong.�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét