Comments on: California Plans For 1.5 Million Zero-Emission Vehicles By 2025

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 20:05:00 +0000

Natural gas is not a long term solution for transportation. First, it releases carbon. Second, we will run out.

Hydrogen fuel cell cars will likely be significantly more expensive per mile to drive than EVs will be.

The price of EV batteries is almost certain to decrease. The only issue is whether we can get a 150+ mile range with < 20 minute rapid charging to give us 'all day' driving ability.

If we get range we will get price. And hydrogen fuel cell vehicles most likely cannot successfully compete. Their fuel is likely to cost well more than 40% more per mile.

By: David Bruderly

David Bruderly — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 17:02:00 +0000

Hydrogen also happens to be the ideal fuel for internal combustion engines. Less efficient than a fuel cell, but much cleaner than a carbon-based motor fuel. Blending renewable hydrogen into natural gas is a practical, pragmatic way to accelerate deployment of both renewable energy systems and hydrogen fuel infrastructure so both will be ready when the fuel cell becomes affordable.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 19:13:00 +0000

We toe the line between idealistic & realistic here… as you know. Feel free to join in.

By: Otis11

Otis11 — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 02:25:00 +0000

Agreed, they aren’t mutually exclusive and we will probably make the most advancement by pursuing both technologies, but if we were to say we have $X billion to spend, it would have the most environmental impact investing in RE infrastructure and Battery R&D and of course a whole bunch of policies conducive to RE and ZEVs…

But alas we don’t live in that world, so my idealistic original comment is a little out of context and it is likely better to pursue both as you said.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 19:22:00 +0000

New electricity will continue to be needed. Solar & wind should be used as much as possible.

But new vehicles will also come on the road. And ZEVs should be expanded as much as possible. Even in areas where the grid isn’t the cleanest, EVs are considerably greener than ICE vehicles: http://cleantechnica.com/2012/04/18/electric-vehicles-greenhouse-gas-emissions-save-money/
The aims aren’t mutually exclusive in the least.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 16:35:00 +0000

I’m opposed.

Hydrogen is not ready for prime time. There’s no reason to believe that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will be any better or as cheap as electricity powered vehicles.

It will take another 2-5 years before we are likely to know which route is more likely to be best.

There are no fuel cell cars in the showrooms, we don’t know what they will cost nor how long the fuel cells will last. We do know that they will cost more per mile to operate than an EV.

We’re getting closer to a battery that will give us two hundred mile range EVs and we know that EVs can be manufactured as cheaply or less than an ICEV.

By: cynthia shahan

cynthia shahan — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 15:27:00 +0000

Thanks

By: John Bailo

John Bailo — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 08:43:00 +0000

White House Petition to build Hydrogen Economy. Sign and Share:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/build-hydrogen-economy/CGJXwTcX

By: Otis11

Otis11 — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 23:18:00 +0000

Well wish them luck and let them go – but for the rest of the US that is still on fossil fuels, we’ll get much more bang for the buck transitioning our grid over first.