Nissan Australia CEO: Government Makes KneeJerk Comments About EVs

Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News!

The CEO of Nissan Australia, Richard Emery, recently let some interesting words fly in a rather forceful way concerning the Australian government’s substantial support of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles rather than electric vehicles (EVs) — and, in particular, concerning the industry minister Ian Macfarlane’s promotion of the Hyundai ix35 Fuel Cell.

In response, the Australian government official was pretty blunt (if perhaps unconvincing) in his take on EVs — they’re ultimately dependent on fossil fuels (I don’t disagree with this myself)… so people should use hydrogen vehicles, which supposedly aren’t. Lmao. Well you had me at the start, but you lost me.

Nissan LEAF Challenges Chicago Slush With Self-Cleaning Paint

The specific words used sound a bit like something out of sales pitch, so they’re worth reprinting here imo:

“Some people say that solution lies in electric cars. I don’t drive an electric car. Some people say we will have enough fossil fuel to last us for centuries. I don’t agree with that either.”

“The reality is if you drive an electric car the chances are it’s being fuelled by fossil fuel-generated power; out of sight and perhaps out of mind but it’s not the solution. The ultimate solution surely is something that in the full cycle starts with water and ends with water and that to me is what this vehicle represents today; the next generation of environmentally friendly vehicles,” stated Australian Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane (as quoted by

Nice debate strategy I suppose, no doubt one that many people are convinced by. Too bad hydrogen vehicles are actually much less efficient (with regards to ultimate fossil fuel use) than EVs are, though. Fundamentally, HFCVs are much less likely to ever be free of their fossil fuel dependency, while EVs can be if you simply get your electricity from solar power (or wind, hydropower, geothermal energy…).

To be fair, I suppose that perhaps Macfarlane is hoping that some sort of breakthrough in the technology of hydrogen production will occur in the near future. “They’ll think of something” — that sort of thing. However, EVs have a lot going for them now, not in some imaginary future, and should be pushed accordingly. Imo.

The Nissan CEO responded in an interesting way to the comments, writing out a full press release even (posted below). Enjoy.


The future is here. It just needs to be switched on.

A statement from Richard Emery, Managing Director & CEO, Nissan Australia

The way governments treat the Australian automotive industry is frustrating. Time and again they fail to take the time to properly consult those who have the facts. And it’s especially annoying when governments make knee-jerk comments and short-term decisions.

Earlier this month I was surprised and concerned about comments by the Federal Government that question the role electric cars will play in Australia’s future motoring landscape. The Federal Minister for Industry and Science, Ian Macfarlane, who has suddenly expressed great support for the idea of hydrogen-powered cars after declaring they “could place Australia in a leadership role for the introduction of zero emission vehicles within the Asia Pacific rim,” has again shown a lack of understanding and appears to have not consulted with the wider automotive industry and his own government colleagues.

Consider this: On one hand, Minister Macfarlane talks of the need for tighter emissions targets for new vehicles, yet on the other he pulls the rug from under the future of zero-emissions electric cars in Australia. In the meantime, one of his Federal colleagues talks about the possible free importation of new and used vehicles from overseas, with the potential for negative impacts on road-user safety, consumer protection, and the environment from higher exhaust emissions. None of this makes sense.

Minister Macfarlane has said Australia has long been behind Europe and other countries when it comes to vehicle emissions standards. This is true. But the automotive industry has been leading the way here by importing ever-cleaner new cars for the Australian market.

The good news is that some of the best new vehicles that can help overcome this environmental challenge are already here. And with the right government support, I’m confident more will come.

Firstly, our company already has a zero-tailpipe-emissions vehicle solution in the Nissan LEAF, the world’s best-selling electric car, with more than 158,000 sold globally. It’s a five-seat hatchback and it’s a genuine zero-emissions car – it doesn’t have an exhaust pipe – and it’s been on sale here for almost three years. Nissan Australia even manufactures parts for its electric engine. It’s the ideal ‘green’ car, especially when you partner it with solar technology to power its battery recharger. As for the Nissan LEAF placing Australia in a leadership role for zero emission vehicles, it already does this in many parts of the world, including Europe, the USA and Japan. It could do it here, too. It just needs some government help, the same kind of assistance that governments in Europe, the USA and Japan provide.

The Nissan LEAF is a pioneering electric car. It’s the top-selling electric vehicle both globally and in Australia and continues fighting the challenge of being accepted by consumers. The two barriers to its local acceptance are the same two it has faced everywhere else in the world, and they aren’t marketing or so-called ‘range anxiety’: they are the lack of publicly available battery recharging infrastructure and the absence of government-driven incentives for consumers to buy a zero-emissions car. These two facilities are behind the success of electric vehicles in Europe, the USA and Japan. And we need them here.

Ever-tightening emissions regulations overseas have brought about the need for electric cars like the Nissan LEAF. Vehicles that have lower emissions, to the point of zero, are very much the future of car-making. It’s why we’ve remained committed to this important vehicle, despite the fact every Nissan LEAF sold in Australia costs our company significant money – they don’t make any profit. Yes, we want to sell more of them here. Our competitors want to do the same with their own models. But we can’t do this alone. The Australian government only has to help with two things, the same two things some of the world’s biggest economies have been doing for years:

– Give Australian buyers sufficient incentives to buy zero-emission vehicles, and;
– Help provide vehicle battery recharging infrastructure for the public to use.

Our Federal Government wants cleaner vehicles on our roads, ideally ones without exhaust emissions. And with relation to zero-emission vehicles, Minister MacFarlane has said: “what we’ve seen in the United States and Europe is that the consumer demand creates the opportunity”. He’s absolutely right. But the only way this will occur is with government input. The Nissan LEAF is sold in 43 markets on four continents and, frustratingly, Australia appears to be the only one without any significant government incentives for a consumer to buy a zero-emissions car. Minister MacFarlane can change this. But if it is a whole-of-government view that electric vehicles are not an option for Australia then we will need to seriously consider our position on the Nissan LEAF electric car.

Richard Emery
Managing Director & CEO
Nissan Australia

Lots of good points. Wonder if MacFarlene will respond.

Perhaps I’m wrong (evil?) for this, but I can’t help but be somewhat amused to see another ‘developed’ country with a political establishment as dysfunctional as that in the US.

Image Credit: Nissan

Have a tip for CleanTechnica? Want to advertise? Want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.

CleanTechnica Holiday Wish Book

Holiday Wish Book Cover

Click to download.

Our Latest EVObsession Video

I don't like paywalls. You don't like paywalls. Who likes paywalls? Here at CleanTechnica, we implemented a limited paywall for a while, but it always felt wrong — and it was always tough to decide what we should put behind there. In theory, your most exclusive and best content goes behind a paywall. But then fewer people read it!! So, we've decided to completely nix paywalls here at CleanTechnica. But...
Like other media companies, we need reader support! If you support us, please chip in a bit monthly to help our team write, edit, and publish 15 cleantech stories a day!
Thank you!

CleanTechnica uses affiliate links. See our policy here.

James Ayre

James Ayre's background is predominantly in geopolitics and history, but he has an obsessive interest in pretty much everything. After an early life spent in the Imperial Free City of Dortmund, James followed the river Ruhr to Cofbuokheim, where he attended the University of Astnide. And where he also briefly considered entering the coal mining business. He currently writes for a living, on a broad variety of subjects, ranging from science, to politics, to military history, to renewable energy.

James Ayre has 4830 posts and counting. See all posts by James Ayre

54 thoughts on “Nissan Australia CEO: Government Makes KneeJerk Comments About EVs

  • I don’t see why people (like the Aussie minister) keep making it an either-or situation. He is being absurd – especially with all the solar going in in Australia.

    To his credit, the Nissan exec didn’t slam FCVs. Batteries are clearly ahead now (perhaps by about 10 years) but the GHG situation is sufficiently dire that we can leave no reasonable area unsupported.

    I’ve even had to rethink my life-long opposition to nuclear power, though any substantial new nuclear sites seems pretty unlikely at this point.

    This is a survival of the species matter, and everything has to be on the table.

    • nuclear is a mess, see France commission new nuclear, Finland new nuclear,
      decommission Sellafield nuclear UK.

      • Can you expand on your comment please. France always seemed to be the example case of a country getting its electrical power predominantly from Nuclear Fission. I know nothing of Finland but Sellafield has a long history not all of which was exemplary.

    • If you support nuclear you are actually worsening the climate situation. Renewables are more cost efficient by far and much, much faster to deploy. You could have much more impact on CO2 reduction and much faster if you didn’t waste any money on nuclear and put it directly into renewables instead. Any support for nuclear is a support to much, especially because you are right and the GHG situation is extremely dire.

      • Please don’t be fanatic. You don’t help the case by telling that everyone who is not with you is against you. You are just being aggresive this way and making enemies, not friends. Nuclear is expansive but it’s not accelerating climat change. Maybe people should also stop using internet – you know it’s using lot of energy from coal at the moment. You sound almost like crazy eco-fanatic who want to get back into prehistory. No removing investments from nuclear often will not provide more money into RE. Maybe ask Apple why it doesn’t invest all it’s cash into RE? So iPads are now toys of devil?

        • Fanatic? Seriously? I have given pragmatic, rational arguments while your comment has no substance at all. It’s not my fault that you don’t like what you hear, but there is nothing wrong with my assessment.

  • “chances are it’s being fuelled by fossil fuel-generated power; out of sight and perhaps out of mind”

    What Macfarlane is saying is … A BEV is perhaps clean, perhaps not. That may be correct, but there is a much better chance of getting renewable electricity than renewable hydrogen!

    • “What Macfarlane is saying is” I like money, lots of it even from Korea.

      • He is not taking money from Korea! You’ve insulted my patriotism! He’s taking good Australian bribe money from natural gas interests that don’t care if they drown our children! That’s what a true patriot does! And he’s not taking wads of money now, he’ll be taking it later when he gets paid thousands of dollars an hour to sit on the board of a fossil fuel company, or millions of dollars a year as a vice-president. (The vice-presidents of the Queensland Government owned coal power holding company Stanwell Corp. get paid $8 million a year. That’s 16 times as much as our Prime Minister, who gets as much as the US President does while running a less rich, much smaller country, without the big assassination risk.)

        But I think you are selling Macfarlane short. He is more than capable of showing gross ignorance of the basic laws of physics without any thought of monetary reward. After all, he’s only the Minister for Industry, he can’t be expected to know stuff.

        • Well you have open a little bit of what is going on there.
          Instead of bashing the Australians it would help if we understood the politics and the player.
          I see Australia’s coal resources like Texas Oil.
          I grew up in Texas.
          There is the politics of your job and the local economy.

        • I wish I could upvote this beautiful little rant five or six times. Ronald, that was brilliant, thank you.

    • As I understand it, the hydrogen needed for the fuel cell is split from water using electricity. In that case both the FCEV and the BEV are the same:- “chances are it’s being fuelled by fossil fuel-generated power; out of sight and perhaps out of mind”

      • The hydrogen is not split from water, it is split from NG.

        • In SMR – half of the H2 molecules come from water – half come from natural gas. So you are right, it is split from natural gas. But you are also wrong, as it is also split from water.

          Pretty interesting; you should research it.

          Also, if even 0.1% is from electrolysis, that means over 50% of hydrogen comes from WATER.

          • ” if even 0.1% is from electrolysis, that means over 50% of hydrogen ”

            what universe do you live in?

          • Steam methane reforming: CH4 + 2 H2O => 4 H2 + CO2
            Ben is right.

  • Red herring, just a way to deflect and delay meaningful action.. Adopting any kind of hydrogen fuel cycle is not not going to happen tell people can buy hydrogen vehicles and that’s years away even if toyota is serious and I’m not sure if they are. Even if toyota is they are they are the only manufactures developing fuel cells so customer options and choice would be limited. Fuel cells might be an option but I don’t see anything meaningful in the pipeline so that means nothing in the 5 years or so it takes to gear up to real production. By 2021 EV’s are going to be moving into the market like Pancakes into loggers mouths.

    • “… they (Toyota) are the only manufactures developing fuel cells”

      As long as you don’t count Daimler (parent of Mercedes, Dodge, Chrysler, Jeep) – they have been working on it for over 20 years (like Toyota). Not to mention Honda, General Motors, Nissan, Hyundai; just to name a few. The ones that haven’t had this much experience have made partnerships to play catch up. BMW partnered with Toyota; Volkswagen partnered with Ballard ( a fuel cell tech company).

      The ix35 is real. The Mirai is real. Everyday, many more get delivered.

      The slow start is modest for a good reason. Have some respect for all the effort and accomplishment of this zero emission vehicle. Hydrogen has a huge portfolio of sources. Virtually any electricity source, as well as many chemical sources. Recent studies have even proven enzymes to break down the sugars in corn stalks to be nearly 100% efficient. Our own human waste (toilet matter) is even a source of hydrogen.

      • For electricity sources a BEV will always be more efficient than an FCV. For hydrocarbon sources you still have the problem of the resulting CO2 pollution, although that could be mitigated by carbon capture (it’s easier to do at the production facility than at the tailpipe). And of course there’s still the issue that those hydrocarbons are not renewable although it should last us through the century the cost of fossil fuels will tend to surpass other sources of energy.

  • I do not like to point out , but in the last paragraph one other county was missed -Canada.
    I have said it before- We need intelligent politicians.
    Since live in Canada, please can anybody find us some!

    • Take few teenagers. Chances are great they will be much less corrupted and more reasonable :p They are easy to be affected by lobbyists but can it be worse than now?

  • “The ultimate solution surely is something that in the full cycle starts with water and ends with water and that to me is what this vehicle represents today; the next generation of environmentally friendly vehicles”

    This is one of the primary reason why Hydrogen FCVs are still getting a lot of funding…. a gross ignorance of physics and chemistry.

    Energy pathways are the reason why we still use fossil fuels.
    Not “molecule pathways”. Starting and ending with water (H2O) is not relevant. The molecule is an energy carrier.
    YOU MUST follow the energy.

    The convoluted energy path that water must take to power an FCV, is a great metaphor for the Hydrogen economy…
    A whole lot of work, time, and money spend on ever increasing inefficiency… only to wind up wasting most of it, and end up back where we started.

  • The thing to keep in mind with Australia is that our Liberal party which is currently holding the reigns is bought and paid for by international mining concerns. Add to this a system / landscape of journalism and political commentary which is utterly busted, ie, unable to separate clear and salient facts from rhetoric, and what you are left with is a huge mess. Very sad days for this wonderful country.

    • Yes if I had the slightest faith in the scientific literacy of the current Australian Federal Government I might think this was a deliberate attempt to support the fossil fuel lobby, that would make sense since they do help pay for their political campaigns, but no they are just dumb.

  • “Perhaps I’m wrong (evil?) for this, but I can’t help but be somewhat amused to see another ‘developed’ country with a political establishment as dysfunctional as that in the US.”

    What about Germany, UK, Japan? they all prefer hydrogen over BEVs as well.

  • Now what was that famous movie phrase again? Oh wait, now I remember;

    “Stupid is as stupid does”. Anyone else think this might apply?

    And if by some miracle hydrogen created from water becomes really cheap which it probably never will – it will NEVER be free. And most likely you are not going to be making and storing it in your own garage so plan on continuing your weekly trips to your local hydrogen filling station. Lets hope there is one in your neighborhood. Oh wait; isn’t this just like finding electric charging stations for electric vehicles. Oh wait I guess not – there are power outlets everywhere.

    It still amazes me to this day how many people want to continue this practice of “going to filling stations” after about 100 years of the practice. Talk about die hard fans.

    To me I can’t wait until I can just go to work, come home, plug in and then repeat the process. And if I have solar panels on my home; in about 5-8 years; after my panels are paid for; I get to drive for almost free from the energy provided by our sun which by the way has been around far longer than any fossil fuel company. And unlike that fossil fuel company I have a pretty high degree of confidence that the sun will come up tomorrow. I do not have that same confidence in a fossil fuel or car company.

    O.K. so which makes more sense to you – buying hydrogen for your fuel cell vehicle for another 5 years or so until you get rid of it – OR – driving for almost free with power from the sun?

    To me this is not a very tough question but I certainly welcome all answers.

    • Going to filling stations. Some people still play music on spinning disks, too. Not the vinyl ones, the other ones. When magnetic disk drive makers decided to make optical memories, guess what. They did it with a spinning disk and a read head. Just like they did magnetics.

      • So true evee. I still have a few of those old spinning disks and they sound wonderful, LOL.

        However my computer now uses a solid state gizmo. They are of course much faster than I can type. Have a wonderful day and thank you for your comment.

    • FCs currently are used (using H2 from water hydrolysis) in a limited number of highly specific applications where batteries don’t make sense like military, space and large material handling equipment (6-ton fork lifts used round the clock in large assembly and warehouses).

      You can buy a small water hydrolysis machine on Amazon. No reason you can’t make water from all the free electricity from you PV panels. FCVs are behind EVs no doubt, but as I wrote earlier, we can’t leave any tech out. FCs may stay a niche, but maybe not.

      • You are correct Michael. In some cases hydrogen makes perfect sense. But for me it doesn’t make sense for the millions and millions of vehicles we drive back and forth to work every day. What EV’s are really good at are for people who drive from 2-40 miles back and forth to work, shopping, movie night, and taking your sweetheart out to dinner. Good posting Mr. G.

        • And in a few years we will have affordable EVs that let us take that ‘trip of a lifetime’ to Yellowstone, Key West, wherever and save us a bundle on ‘fuel’ costs.

          It’s not clear where we will find places where hydrogen will make perfect sense in our futures world. We have to remember that (green) hydrogen is only a storage technology. And that (green) hydrogen is a very lossy storage technology.

          Right now the place where some thin, hydrogen makes sense in for forklifts in places that need to avoid CO buildup. But look forward a very few years to when batteries are much less expensive and higher capacity. Those forklifts might need a 30 minute recharge every eight hours (Tesla pumps in 174 miles in 30 minutes).

          Driver charges while eating their meal.

          Warehouse saves serious money by avoiding hydrogen purchases.

      • The infrastructure to charge all cars, were they EVs, is about 90% in place. We just need to add some outlets.

        The infrastructure to fill cars, were they FCEVs, is about 0% in place. We would need to replace all our refineries, 120,000+ service stations, and build 4x as many fuel tankers.

        Unless one drives more than 200 miles a day, quite often, a FCEV drivers will spend a lot more time visiting fueling stations. Most EV drivers will rarely stop for a L3 charge.

        The FCEV range advantage will disappear. Right now the Toyota Mirai has a 300 mile range, the Tesla ModS had a 250 mile range. Battery capacity will increase. Our ability to safely stuff more H2 into a tank won’t.

        Battery capacity has been growing 5% to 8% a year (depending on your starting point). That’s a doubling in 9 to 14 years. If capacity continues to increase as it has in the past the “ModS” of 2024/2039 will have a 500 mile range and need only an overnight charge in order to be driven all day long 365 days a year.

        Battery capacity should increase faster going forward. We re now doing vastly more battery research than in the past.

        • You usually make insightful comments. This one was anything but.

          No question that plug-ins make sense for households with dedicated parking spot(s), where an outlet is present or can be added. In the US, that’s just over half of them [same link as above].

          I was talking about the other half, parking at the curb or other public place, at a different spot every evening. How would you suggest guaranteeing those a place to charge? Battery improvements really don’t matter if people can’t charge reliably.

          Make some parking spots “PEV only” and install charging there?
          Open trenches in entire neighborhoods to blanket the streets with charging stations?
          Who’s going to support such measures?

          Now FCVs. The infrastructure is just as much in place as for EVs, “90%” if that’s what you want to call it, because refuelling stations typically make hydrogen on-site via SMR [link] or via electrolysis [link].
          A single station can service whole neighborhoods, with virtually no impact if combined with an existing gas-station for example.

          Imagine 10’000 cars owned by apartment dwellers parking on the streets etc, and at night, 98% of the spots are used.
          Now say we expect 5% to switch to zero-emission vehicles over the next couple years. What would work?
          – EVs: reserve 500 spaces for them and install charging there. Expect a massive anti-EV movement over “wasted” spaces.
          – EVs, next attempt: no PEV-only spots but 5’000 plugs; notice it’s still insufficient as some EV drivers will sometime fail to find charging.
          – FCVs: install two stations like the one in Oakland [linked above and here]. Works.

          Blanket statements “tech A is better” make little sense; as shown here, it all depends on the usage case.

          • First, it will not be a “one size fits all” solution.

            About 50% can now charge where they park when home.

            I’m going to guesstimate that another 20% could have an outlet installed where ‘at home’. Some of those will be private dwellings with no current outlet. Some apartment/condo parking lots.

            I’m going to guess that another 20% could charge in a workplace parking lot.

            The final 10%, curbside parking with charge outlets (some already exist). Or a weekly half hour spent at a “SuperCharger’. 30 minutes at a SC = 174 miles range = 9,000 miles a year. Drive more? Visit twice a week. Plug in while grocery shopping, going to the gym, eating dinner.

            Larger capacity batteries will appear and SuperChargers will get more powerful.

            Installing outlets in a parking lot means cutting a slit trench (2″ – 3” wide), dropping in conduit, sealing over the trench, installing outlet posts, pulling wire.

            Parking meters are now electric. It’s possible that we could add metered outlets to their posts for slow, overnight charging.

            Have you thought through H2 stations? You’ll need more H2 stations (pumps) than we have for gasmobiles. FCEVs have lower range and will need to be filled more often. We’ll need perhaps 4x as many delivery trucks as we do with gas and diesel because H2 is less dense.

            You can’t just add H2 capacity to most gas stations. There’s no room for the very large storage tanks that would be needed.

            You can’t afford to build enough H2 stations in a hurry to make refueling convenient. Nothing like the present gas stations. And the cost of building a multi-million dollar H2 station in the small town areas of the US? Where would that money come from?

      • Hi GCO :
        I still have a relative who lives in West L.A. and I can attest to your number of people who don’t have access to charging stations but solutions are on the way. For those apartment dwellers I have heard of two solutions. One is already being implemented and the other is on the drawing boards.

        1. On Street Charging. Like parking meters only charging stations and some exist in California today. You insert your credit card and your vehicle is charged later in the evening with off-peak power. The solution is also already in place which is at work charging. This is also a nice employee perk and most of the time the drivers of EV’s get prefered parking and sometimes in the shade of the solar panels.

        2. In Street Inductive Charging. Not yet ready for prime time but progress is being made. Some roadways and highway sections have already been tested using this technology. Since the charge is inductive the power cables are hidden below the asphalt and no charging cable is required to charge the vehicle. People drive up, park, insert their credit card and your vehicle would be charged later in the evening with off-peak power.

        Two things are currently holding back such systems.

        A. The U.S and international standards are not yet complete. My guess is we will see these standards completed and implemented by vehicle manufacturers within the next 5 years or so.

        B. The current efficiency of the inductive charging process is only about 80%. That efficiency level needs to be improved to about 90-95% and significant progress is being made in that area.

        Once these two problems are solved look for the sales of EV’s to really take off.

  • Lol…he said electric engine…

    • We say electric engine. Particularly when railways are involved.

      • Ah, makes sense. I blame being trained in the standard system of measurement vs metric 🙂

  • I will point out that Minister Ian Macfarlane is a person who has said that three billion dollars worth of oil will cost, “billions and billions and billions of dollars”. Obviously we can’t expect much basic maths or physics knowledge from a guy who has to count his billions one at a time.

    • The brain is there….
      it just needs to be switched on.

  • Once you test drive a Tesla S in any version, you will completely forget fuel cell vehicles, which will never have the fun factor a BEV already has.

  • Unforced cluelessness by Macfarlane. Australia’s car manufacturing industry is on its last legs, and both FCEVs and BEVs have to be imported, so there is no national interest served in his bias to the former. This is not a competent government.

    • There is not going to be any subsidy for fuel cell vehicles or electric vehicles coming from this government, they can’t even be bothered to replenish our oil stocks from about 52 days of use to the 90 days that we agreed to with other countries to help make the world a more stable place. So this was just a free opportunity by Macfarlane to demonstrate he either too imcompetent to run stuff he doesn’t understand past his staffers, or he is too incompetent to employ competent staff.

  • To me, defending hydrogen as the best solution is about maintaining a centralized energy distribution system. The incumbents don’t want you to refill at home from your own panels and personal energy storage system (or from other non-centralized sources).

    • H2 isn’t about the “best” solution for everything so much as a solution for areas where pure BEVs may not be optimal. I wouldn’t claim FCVs are best for everything any more than I would claim BEVs are best for everything.

      You can buy a home hydrolyser on Amazon today and larger H2 generators are used on site in various industrial locations. Honda has one for the home using NG. There is no reason a larger water hydrolyser wouldn’t be available for cars.

      Check out this expert article on FCVs vs BEVs – coming down for a combo-hybrid. Few people here are experts. It is helpful to listen to one who is.

  • I started reading up on hydrogen fuel cells a while back. I don’t remember much, but I do remember when I got to the part about invisible fire…good night, folks!

  • “To be fair, I suppose that perhaps Macfarlane is hoping that some sort of breakthrough in the technology of hydrogen production will occur in the near future.”

    LMAO! No he is not. He is a climate change denier and a fossil fuel/ICE fanboy, he doesn’t want to change anything and only thinks environmental protection is a crazy idea that is bad for the economy. He doesn’t want to do anything, so he pulls this fata morgana FCV out of his head(or a region further down) like the auto industry did before and tells everyone we have to wait before we do anything, because clean cheap FCVs are right around the corner, where they always will be. So glad that clean cheap BEV technology on the other hand will swipe away ICEs and idiots like these very soon!

  • Just ignorant but genuine question to Australians: have you missed election of your rulers with contest for idiots? I’m often ashamed by my own politicians but they are at least good at lies so I can forgive myself being fooled.

Comments are closed.