Competing technologies to BEV

[Julian Cox]

Flux - the intention here is to collect this stuff together as a rounded and coherent case and go to war with it on many fronts.


Yes FCVs are battery EVs using small batteries for acceleration and regen. Typically they also use low quality DC brushless motors with rare earth magnets. The FC and hydrogen industry replaces sending renewable energy along wires to charge a larger battery.


" i think at the end of the day, the vast majority of people are going to buy cars based on price vs. quality/performance"

True, and the greatest concern in that regards is an anti-trust practice of bundling hydrogen for free with a low cost lease. (See Hyundai Tucson FCV).

The FCV push also relies upon environmental bluff to persuade society to invest in hydrogen fuelling infrastructure, there is no reason for society to be defrauded in that manner when the net result is no meaningful improvement on current Hybrids that can use the existing infrastructure. An equivalent expenditure on Solar whether government, corporate or a combination would actually go a long way to solving the problem (all be it at a cost to the fossil fuel industry unless it participates positively via reallocation of resources). The $200 M wasted by CARB in California must not become a multi $billion if not $trillion resource drain on doing the right thing with renewables and sustainable transportation.

To round off something in the above. MPGe (energy equivalence per mile) is the constraint on separating FCVs out from fossil fuels. This 60 ~ 68 MPGe really does play 89MPGe for the Model S.

When you try to make the case for MPGe to power an FCV from renewable energy, the MPG e dies for FCVs. I will do a bit of extra work on that and then try to put all this together.

 

[surfside]

" i think at the end of the day, the vast majority of people are going to buy cars based on price vs. quality/performance"

True, and the greatest concern in that regards is an anti-trust practice of bundling hydrogen for free with a low cost lease. (See Hyundai Tucson FCV).

long term, the car companies are going to need to make money, and the hydrogen fueling stations are going to need to make money. given the costs to make a FCV, if it makes sense for the car company financially to essentially pay for hydrogen for the customer (and still be price competitive with ICEs and EVs), then i don't see how that would be an anti-trust practice. if the car companies aren't paying for the "free" hydrogen, who would be paying for it? what am i missing here?

surfside

 

[Julian Cox]

long term, the car companies are going to need to make money, and the hydrogen fueling stations are going to need to make money. given the costs to make a FCV, if it makes sense for the car company financially to essentially pay for hydrogen for the customer (and still be price competitive with ICEs and EVs), then i don't see how that would be an anti-trust practice. if the car companies aren't paying for the "free" hydrogen, who would be paying for it? what am i missing here?

surfside

I think its is a fair deduction that the only purpose of FCVs is to try to extinguish the market for renewables and sustainable transportation. It cannot stand on its own feet economically but that is not preventing $billions being poured into it in terms of vehicle programs, marketing and lobbying. While the focus of the attacks are definitely on anti Tesla touch points, the immediate effect is to divert energies within Big Auto from EV to FCV.

Microsoft faced anti trust suits for bundling Internet Explorer for free with Windows. I expect it can be demonstrated that free hydrogen is an anti trust practice whose purpose is to unfairly stifle competition to big oil and big auto.

My suspicion is that Big Oil is sponsoring the free hydrogen and possibly subsidising the vehicles too. I would be interested to discover who exactly is behind the Hyundai free hydrogen. Perhaps someone has some info on that?

OK, now to look at MPGe. Gut feel, I think the results will be shocking.

 

[Johan]

long term, the car companies are going to need to make money, and the hydrogen fueling stations are going to need to make money. given the costs to make a FCV, if it makes sense for the car company financially to essentially pay for hydrogen for the customer (and still be price competitive with ICEs and EVs), then i don't see how that would be an anti-trust practice. if the car companies aren't paying for the "free" hydrogen, who would be paying for it? what am i missing here?

surfside

Apart from bogus subsidies that may get states or taxpayers to pay for the infrastructure or the hydrogen itself your analysis i correct. For example it's common today to sell a car with tires. I'm sure you could sell a car with tires for the car's life included in the sales price, if you wanted. Or for that matter an ICE with x number of Gallons per year of fuel included or some such thing, even though it's uncommon practice.

As long as the FCV advocates don't succeed too well with getting access to large subsidies over time it seems obvious that these types of cars will never become economically viable when compered to evolving BEVs with better and cheaper batteries for every year that goes by. Remember what Elon is always saying: ZEV credits, CARB credits, state rebates etc. are all temporary thing that should not be counted on and Tesla must be profitable without these and Tesla's cars must be better than ICEs and make more economic sense than ICEs without any artificial subsidies. This point has already been reached.

 

[FluxCap]

I think its is a fair deduction that the only purpose of FCVs is to try to extinguish the market for renewables and sustainable transportation.

I agree wholeheartedly. Incidentally, highways full of compressed hydrogen bombs waiting to go off sounds like a nightmare to me.

There is not now and never has been any good reason to divert from a path that leads to 100% battery electric transportation powered by the sun.

 

[c041v]

I agree wholeheartedly. Incidentally, highways full of compressed hydrogen bombs waiting to go off sounds like a nightmare to me.

There is not now and never has been any good reason to divert from a path that leads to 100% battery electric transportation powered by the sun.

This +1.

I'm hoping that beyond Julian's excellent analysis some of the more intangible things like never having to visit any fueling stations or dealerships deter people from jumping into FCV's. This is arguably the softer, but perhaps more customer compelling side of the argument. Tesla has done a brilliant job of disrupting the whole experience.

I also wonder how eager salespeople will be to push these new models given the recent article indicating that salespeople with limited knowledge are likely to go so far as deterring potential customers from the models that particular company offers.

 

[Julian Cox]

Early into the MPGe investigation it has become obvious that the 143 MJ/Kg figure frequently quoted for Hydrogen is not relevant or correct.

This is known as a HHV figure that assumes a quantity is burned in a system with no exhaust pipe. All calories (Joules) are counted including all of the heat in the water vapour exhaust.

The correct figure for a system with a water vapour exhaust (like an FCV) is 120 MJ/Kg. This is known as the LHV (lower heating value).

I have edited the emissions calculations accordingly and balanced the energy equation correctly for heat input to SMR with an extremely eye opening result:


Combustion only calculations ref: David Hone - Climate Change Advisor for Shell Natural gas, CO2 emissions and climate change


Coal 0.093 kg CO2/MJ


Coke 0.108 kg CO2/MJ


Natural gas 0.056 kg CO2/MJ


Now using the 120 MJ/Kg (LHV) figure representative of combustion of H2 with a water vapour exhaust we can add hydrogen on a pure combustion basis:


Hydrogen 0.104 kg CO2/MJ (81.4% worse than Natural Gas or 11.8% worse than Coal, only 3.7% better than Coke!).


Now Here is a kicker (on a pure combustion basis).


Gasoline 0.069 kg CO2/MJ (33.7% better than hydrogen).


Diesel 0.074 kg CO2/MJ (28.8% better than hydrogen).


This is another reason alongside high cost of production, handling difficulties and low energy density is why Hydrogen is not generally considered in the absence of fuel cell hybrids that feature electric drive trains and regenerative braking recover from profound efficiency losses. A water vapour exhaust would be available from a hydrogen ICE vehicle but the overall pollution would similar to a coal fired steam engine. All of the benefits of FCVs are derived from commonality with BEVs with FC component being a limiting factor.

 

[Julian Cox]

Double Checking FCV MPGe (Miles Per Gallon Energy Equivalence). Ref: https://www.google.com/#q=MPGe+definition


By definition MPGe deals with energy consumed by the vehicle. As a result a great deal of inefficiencies can be front-end loaded prior to presenting an energy source to the vehicle for consumption without affecting the MPGe figure. Between various fossil fuels such as diesel, gasoline even CNG the equivalence holds reasonably well because each can be considered a primary fuel and the differences relate primarily to minor variances in transportation. It is also fair to say that Hybrids powered by fossil fuels offer a direct equivalence also.


Hydrogen and electricity on the other hand diverge wildly. Both are available as a secondary product of fossil fuels, but only one is the primary product of renewable energy. In stark contrasts to marketing claims typically associated with hydrogen FCVs concerning the abundance of hydrogen in the universe, the naturally occurring abundance of un-bonded hydrogen on Planet Earth is effectively zero.


Hence when the consumer and regulatory value proposition in a vehicle is to a great extent predicated on environmental credentials, it is critical to get a clear view of source-energy to wheel metrics to ensure that the result that is sought is actually in the direction of travel. This document is conclusive and must stand as a wake up call before it is too late!





Step 1. Starting Assumptions.


We have an official reference that 1 Kg of Hydrogen and 33.70 kWh of electricity is almost precisely equivalent to the specific energy of 1 gallon of gasoline. ref: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf


Sanity checking those numbers. 116,090 Btu = 122.57 MJ = 34.022 kWh. This seems to check out within reasonable bounds.


Additional reference here defining HHV and LHV: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_combustion In essence, when water vapour is the exhaust (which it is in an FCV) the correct figure is the LHV figure of 119.96 MJ/Kg. I will continue with the figure of 120 MJ/Kg.


To get at a basis for direct comparison we need a figure for well to tank efficiency of Gasoline 86% ref: http://www.paccar.ethz.ch/downloads/posters/poster_well_to_tank


According to the linked reference “Well-to-tank calculations for renewable energy sources can’t be compared with the ones of fossil fuels”. That is something that is needs to change and change right now hence this document. However I respectfully agree with the rest of it. Note that this document suggests 65% well to wheel efficiency for SMR which agrees closely with the calculations produced in the previous section (66% efficiency / 12.401 Kg CO / Kg H2).


Baseline Figure: Gasoline 122.57 MJ / Gal / 0.86 = 142.52 MJ / Gal Gasoline.

1. Let’s invent a gasoline equivalence measure that is actually useful and call it something. For example MPGx. Let’s optionally annotate it with a source energy. MPGxf (fossil fuel sourced), MPGxr (renewables sourced).

Definition of MPGx: Equivalence to a gasoline energy consumed from well to wheel at the rate of 142.52 MJ = 39.59 kWh = 135083 Btu.

Again this is the standard definition of gasoline equivalence at the vehicle (MPGe) except that well to tank losses have been added back in.


MPGx remains an intuitive measure of equivalence. A 40mpg gasoline vehicle by definition also operates at 40MPGx. The proposed measure of MPGx simply counts the energy used in terms of gallons of gasoline energy at the well instead of gallons in the fuel tank and so in the case of a gasoline vehicle the number of miles remains identical.




3. Now let’s apply MPGx to some vehicles.

First a recap of the SMR Process
Step 1, 0.43 Kg CH4 is required for compression
Step 2, 1.849 Kg CH4 is consumed as a chemical feedstock.
Step 3, 1.35 Kg of CH4 required for heating the SMR process.
Sum, 1 Kg H2 requires 0.43 + 1.849 + 1.35 = 3.629 Kg Ch4.
Cross check, 3.629 Kg Ch4 @ 50 MJ/Kg for Natural Gas = 181.45 MJ
Calc, 1 Kg H2 @ 120 MJ/Kg / 181.45 MJ CH4 = 66% efficiency.
Result of emissions calc:
SMR emits 12.401 Kg CO2 to produce 1 Kg Hydrogen.
Per EPA also releases 90.72g CH4 production slippage @ 2.5%, GHG equivalent to additional 2.268Kg CO2).


As previously calculated when working through the SMR process, the Honda FCX Clarity FCV requires 181.45 MJ of inputs in the form of Natural Gas to travel 60 miles on 1 Kg Hydrogen.


Honda FCX Clarity 181.45 MJ /142.52 MJ/Gal = 1.2731 equivalent gasoline gallons per 60 miles or 47.13 MPGxf


Toyota FCV claimed 68 miles per 1 Kg H2. By the same calulation, 1.2731 equivalent gasoline gallons per 68 miles = 53.41 MPGxf.


Hyundai Tucson FCV. Claimed 265 miles per 5.64 Kg H2. 5.65 * 181.45 MJ / 142.52 MJ. 7.18 equivalent gasoline gallons per 265 miles = 36.91 MPGxf.




For electric vehicles we need to look at source efficiency, for example the Grid. NG > Transport to combined cycle gas generator 91% > Combined cycle gas generator > electricity 60% > grid to consumer > 92.5%


End to end 50.5% efficiency of electricity produced from Natural Gas.


Tesla Model S P85. 265 miles EPA range supplied by 85 kWh / 0.92 = 92.39 kWh after allowing for 8% charging loss, divided by 0.505 well to home grid efficiency = 182.95 kWh. 182.95/39.59 = 4.62 Gallons equivalent for 265 miles = 57.36 MPGxf

1. Now let’s apply MPGx to two competing concepts of a green energy future powered by solar, wind and hydro electricity.

In the case of Hydrogen, we need to look at hydrolysis, the process of splitting (clean) water into Hydrogen and Oxygen.


Typically hydrolysis is a process that delivers 75% efficiency in the energy content of hydrogen produced. If we assume on-site renewable generation, 99% efficiency of water purification > 75% hydrolysis > 93% compression efficiency to 5000psi > 90% efficiency of transportation = 62.1% end to end efficiency.


In other words 1 Kg of Hydrogen containing 120 MJ / Kg of energy requires a renewable input 120 / 0.61 = 196.72 MJ of renewable electricity input. (196.72 MJ is the same as 54.65 kWh).


So let’s look at some vehicles.


Honda FCX Clarity FCV. 60 miles on 1 Kg Hydrogen requires 196.72 MJ of inputs / 142.52 MJ = 1.380 equivalent gallons of gasoline energy. 60/1.380 = 43.47 MPGxr


Toyota FCV at a claimed 68 miles per Kg Hydrogen. 43.47 *68/60= 49.28 MPGxr


Hyundai Tucson Fuel Cell. 265 miles claimed on 5.64 Kg hydrogen. https://www.hyundaiusa.com/tucsonfuelcell/


Hydrogen from electrolysis is 120MJ / 0.61 = 196.72 MJ of renewable source energy. 5.64 Kg H2 * 196.72 MJ/Kg = 1109.50 MJ / 142.52 MJ / Gal = 7.785 equivalent gallons of gasoline energy. 265 / 7.785 = 34.04 MPGxr


For electric vehicles the solar, wind or hydro electricity is a primary source, we need to account for grid loss only, if the source is distant. 7.5% grid loss or 92.5% efficiency would be fair. Hence for 100kWh of renewable electricity we need to input 100/0.925 = 108.11 kWh.


Tesla Model S P85. 265 miles EPA range supplied by 85 kWh / 0.92 = 92.39 kWh after allowing for 8% charging loss. 92.39 / 0.925 for grid loss = 99.88 kWh input to cover 265 miles. 99.88 kWh / 39.59 kWh = 2.523 equivalent gallons of gasoline energy.
265/2.523 = 105.02 MPGxr


The Model S P85 is a large 300 KW / 416hp sedan that is compared here with 100 KW (134.78 hp) FCV vehicles in each instance.




5. Implications.


The current well to wheel efficiencies of FCVs are directly equivalent to current gasoline powered PHEVs, if not slightly worse, and PHEVs require $ZERO fresh investment in supporting infrastructure and $ZERO diversion of resources aimed at reducing harmful emissions.


The future of FCVs is in fact exactly the same as the past. In order for Renewable sourced hydrogen to compete with Natural Gas sourced Hydrogen in the absence of subsidies, the same vehicle, for example the Toyota 2015 FCV will need to make economic sense at 49.28 MPGxr vs the same vehicle currently operating at 53.41 MPGxf. If we choose FCVs in the belief that this is a path to green emissions-free transportation future, that means that in order to transition from fossil fuels to non-polluting sources of energy, the renewable energy source for hydrogen production be it solar, wind or hydro must fall below 49.28MPGxr / 53.41MPGxf or 92% of the price of Natural Gas Production otherwise cheap and abundant Natural Gas will dominate the Hydrogen economy at minimum rate of 12.401 Kg of CO2 per Kg Hydrogen, (more with distributed SMR). Note again: MPGxf = fossil fuel sourced, MPGxr, renewables sourced well to wheel gasoline equivalent miles per gallon.


If on the other hand we were to save our resources and instead channel them into Electric Vehicles. Renewable energy production be it solar, wind or hydro electricity will be able to compete unsubsidized with fossil fuels even if the price of renewables is for example 105.02 MPGxr / 53.41 MPGxf or 196% of the price of Natural Gas sourced energy. The additional cost of renewable energy is overwhelmed by efficiency gains obtained by cutting out the hydrogen and the fuel cell. Furthermore, this is an equivalence in which the EV in question is three times the power of the FCV. In the name of an emissions free future, ramping up EV production, the batteries for them and solar installations is where resources need to go and that is what legislature must defend against a fearful Fossil Fuel Industry, and a fearful Auto Industry looking to stifle competition from renewables and EVs with the hydrogen fuel cell deceit.


5. Regards to Fundamental economic break even with Natural Gas Production at nominally $2.50 per MMBtu (293.07 kWh) or $0.0085 per kWh.


As at 2013 large scale solar installations were nominally $740 per KW with a nominal 20 year lifespan or 58400 hours of 8 hour days resulting $0.0126 per kWh over a lifetime plus costs attributable to financing. $0.0126 / $0.0085 = 148.3% of the cost of Natural Gas. At 148.3%, when used by EVs in transportation, Solar is already well within the 196%~250% band of direct competitiveness with Natural Gas, additionally Solar pricing is on course to halve every three years (see Swanson’s Law). Supporting a realistic trend towards emission-free transportation is where emission reduction resources need to go. Not $2 million SMR filling stations for processing Natural Gas beyond the reach of any practical measure of CO2 sequestering once the error is acknowledged. If we now focus our efforts as a society on solar and EVs the technological and economic basis for an emission free future is here now. Not in a decade or more of following a false trail laid down by the most unlikely source if inspiration when it comes to freedom from fossil fuel dependency. Namely a fossil fuel industry challenged with competition from renewables. If on the other hand we follow the lead of hydrogen producers (the fossil fuel / petrochemical industry) and business seeking to defend themselves from the advance of EVs instead of committing to innovation (the auto industry) then together we will have failed our young at a juncture in history where we can no longer afford to fail.


5. The take home message.


First, a message from Hyundai USA. ref: https://www.hyundaiusa.com/tucsonfuelcell/


“11.
What impact does the Tucson Fuel Cell leave on the environment?
The Tucson Fuel Cell does not emit any harmful greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide. Instead, water is the only emission.”


Allow me to retort.

The deception risk that Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicles dressed up as ‘green’ poses to renewables and sustainable transportation is by far the most serious and most potentially lethal environmental fraud that humanity has ever faced. We must wake up to this.

 

[Julian Cox]

Elon Musk: Tesla Gen III, $35K, compelling, long range, fast charging EV. No invention and no miracle required.

Green Hydrogen.

Now for that we will require a miracle.

Tremendous progress has been made in reducing thecost of making electricity from renewable energy sources.But making hydrogen from renewable energy through theintermediate step of making electricity, a premium energysource, requires further breakthroughs in order to be com-petitive. Basically, these technology pathways for hydrogenproduction make electricity, which is converted to hydrogen,which is later converted by a fuel cell back to electricity.These steps add costs and energy losses that are particularlysignificant when the hydrogen competes as a commoditytransportation fuel—leading the committee to believe thatmost current approaches—except possibly that of wind en-ergy—need to be redirected. The committee believes thatthe required cost reductions can be achieved only by tar-geted fundamental and exploratory research on hydrogenproduction by photobiological, photochemical, and thin-filmsolar processes.




from the executive summary: http://www.ourenergypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/hydrogeconomy.pdf


OK. Now I will go ahead and compile all this stuff.

 

[Auzie]

The deception risk that Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicles dressed up as ‘green’ poses to renewables and sustainable transportation is by far the most serious and most potentially lethal environmental fraud that humanity has ever faced. We must wake up to this.

Julian, your post and the passion that it conveys for a good cause are deserving of more, but I can only say thank you.

I would not dare attempt to comment on the validity of your calculations, I have the impression that your typing speed might be faster than my thinking speed. Nonetheless I enjoyed reading your posts. Going through your calculations brought me back to my uni days and that felt good. That was the orderly environment where science ruled and everything made a lot of sense. Those days are gone and the world is very different from the uni environment. Science and common sense do not rule and often do not even prevail. Kudos to you for fighting for the good cause, for all of us.

 

[kenliles]

Julian, your post and the passion that it conveys for a good cause are deserving of more, but I can only say thank you.

I would not dare attempt to comment on the validity of your calculations, I have the impression that your typing speed might be faster than my thinking speed. Nonetheless I enjoyed reading your posts. Going through your calculations brought me back to my uni days and that felt good. That was the orderly environment where science ruled and everything made a lot of sense. Those days are gone and the world is very different from the uni environment. Science and common sense do not rule and often do not even prevail. Kudos to you for fighting for the good cause, for all of us.

+10 - thanks for the excellent work Julian...!

 

[jerry33]

Regarding competition in the Battery EV field, doesn't Tesla have protected intellectual property that will make it very difficult for other manufacturers to make competitive vehicles? I'm thinking that is why Tesla supplies drive trains to Toyota and Mercedes Benz.

In Toyota's case, I think it's more that Toyota dislikes electric cars and it was cheaper to make a compliance car with Tesla parts than design their own.

 

[Robert.Boston]

Julian, thanks for the extensive and thoughtful analysis. You have pulled back the curtain on the FCV wizard...

Microsoft faced anti trust suits for bundling Internet Explorer for free with Windows. I expect it can be demonstrated that free hydrogen is an anti trust practice whose purpose is to unfairly stifle competition to big oil and big auto.

This isn't an antitrust violation under US laws, any more than Tesla providing Model S owners with free Supercharging.

The only parties who could be injured by this arrangement are sellers of hydrogen gas, who are facing a competitor selling a product below cost. For this to be "predatory pricing" (which would be an antitrust violation), the DoJ would have to show (a) intent to drive hydrogen gas suppliers out of the market and (b) a reasonable likelihood that the scheme would be profitable, i.e. that the price of hydrogen could be increased after the exit of existing suppliers sufficiently to recoup losses during the predatory phase. Neither condition is likely to be true.

 

[Julian Cox]

Julian, thanks for the extensive and thoughtful analysis. You have pulled back the curtain on the FCV wizard...



This isn't an antitrust violation under US laws, any more than Tesla providing Model S owners with free Supercharging.

The only parties who could be injured by this arrangement are sellers of hydrogen gas, who are facing a competitor selling a product below cost. For this to be "predatory pricing" (which would be an antitrust violation), the DoJ would have to show (a) intent to drive hydrogen gas suppliers out of the market and (b) a reasonable likelihood that the scheme would be profitable, i.e. that the price of hydrogen could be increased after the exit of existing suppliers sufficiently to recoup losses during the predatory phase. Neither condition is likely to be true.

Robert, thanks for your insights. Regards curtain pulling, this is just notes leading up to a concerted exercise in rug pulling.

I am interested in your views on anti trust.


"the DoJ would have to show (a) intent to drive [EV] suppliers out of the market and (b) a reasonable likelihood that the scheme would be profitable, i.e. that the price of hydrogen could be increased after the exit of [EV] suppliers sufficiently to recoup losses during the predatory phase."

Editing your point in two places in square brackets is precisely the idea that could be demonstrated beyond any and all reasonable doubt.

There are two chief issues with Hydrogen FCVs.

1. Marketing them as green or a path to green when that is misleading and very far from the point. They are in fact a scheme to power vehicles with fracking of shales as US crude oil dwindles owing to the fact that CNG in an ICE vehicle is too inefficient to contemplate.

2. Anti Trust. Dumping of hydrogen prices to $zero in an attempt to extinguish competition prior to raising prices.


In the absence of lies and price dumping, EVs have nothing to be concerned about.


Regards the potential for Tesla (the only meaningful pure EV company) to bring an anti trust suit against Hyundai (and or its fossil fuel / hydrogen partner/s) to set precedent against anti-competitive price-dumping of hydrogen was also that Tesla could be hoist by its own petard with free electricity for SuperChargers.

I believe your clarification on the second part of the qualification for anti-trust (that consumers would be victimised by a price hike once competition was destroyed) does NOT apply to SuperChargers that are promoted 'free forever'. I actually think Musk is specifically clear on this point of law (not just point of promotion).



I would appreciate your comments.

 

[Robert.Boston]

Remember that with the Windows/Explorer case (where my consultancy did the economics for DOJ), the complaint was not about the Windows monopoly, but rather the use of proprietary code to enhance the operation of Explorer to advantage it over other browsers. Simply put, Microsoft was attempting to use its legal monopoly over Windows to create an artificial monopoly over browsers. This precedent has no obvious links to the FCV/H2 issue.

In any antitrust claim, one must first start with the relevant market. It seems likely that one could prove up "alternative fuel automobiles" as a market. Another market might be "fuels for alternative fuel automobiles". Let's ponder these two, keeping in mind that the burden of proof falls on the DOJ or FTC:

1. Alternative fuel vehicles. I can see the potential for a claim of predatory pricing or dumping (for imported vehicles) against Toyota et al. who are selling FCVs at below production cost. Their likely defense is that the ZEV penalties, when added to the sales price of their FCVs, are greater than cost. That defense only holds together for the limited number of compliance cars they make. They might also mount a more complex defense, relying on a dynamic model of market acceptance: as more FCVs are sold, the production cost falls, price points can firm up, etc. As long as they've got some logic of how they build a successful product line that doesn't depend on EVs disappearing, they're probably safe. After all, lots of companies have some sort of "introductory pricing" designed to launch a new product or service.

2. Fuels for alternative fuel vehicles. This case is going nowhere. The electrical grid is going to be here whether hydrogen succeeds or not, and the price of electricity is highly regulated. There's no way that Big Oil could exclude electricity as a viable fuel.

Remember, any claim Tesla might make about the evils of giving away free fuel to encourage adoption of a new vehicle technology would have to be distinguished from Tesla's own supercharger strategy. Good luck with that.

The most interesting legal angle, in my view, is for false or misleading advertising. This approach could work on ads from the companies themselves, but not the cloud of misinformation being pumped out by various think tanks, etc.

 

[Johan]

Another important arena for legal battles would be where FCV suppliers are able to get access to subsidies and other types of financial support on the erranous basis of being cars that "don't pollute, only emission is water".

 

[Julian Cox]

First things first.

1. Firmly debunk the notion than FCV vs EV is clean vs clean and clearly establish as fact that this is dirty vs clean.
2. How to deal with dirty competition (in both senses of the word) will follow quite naturally.


I do believe that price dumping hydrogen is intended to create an artificial monopoly on clean energy and transportation (despite the fact that it is not even clean), and I am not convinced that whether anti trust is the correct tool for the job (or whether its trading standards) that under the right circumstances what is clearly an artificial and unfair practice should not be addressed as such.

I don't want to get into a debate about minutia it but it needs to be said that unlike hydrogen fuelling stations, SuperChargers are neither factually a sole source of fuelling for Tesla, nor are they promoted as such. Added to which accesses is charged to customers arguably at fair value of $2000 per vehicle.

I would also be interested in a spotlight on the $2 Million a shot SMR stations (100 of them) being paid for by CARB. I suspect that this violates CARB's mandate to deal with local emissions in California. Local SMR produces local emissions of EPA certified air pollution.

BTW - this makes me sick. The guy below (bio) was the guy that was brought in under GW Bush / Schwarzenegger to head CARB at the critical juncture in the EV1 saga. A gas chemist and Fuel Cell guy.

Dr. Alan C. Lloyd

President
International Council on Clean Transportation




Alan Lloyd has served as the President of the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) since 2006. He is one of its founding members, The ICCT, sponsored by the William and Floral Hewlett Foundation, the Energy Foundation, and the ClimateWorks Foundation, has the goal of dramatically improving the environmental performance and operational efficiency of cars, trucks, buses and transportation systems in order to protect and improve the environment, and the health and quality of life of the public.

Dr. Lloyd served as the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency from 2004 through February 2006 and as the Chairman of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) from 1999 to 2004.

Prior to joining CARB, Dr. Lloyd was the Executive Director of the Energy and Environmental Engineering Center for the Desert Research Institute at the University and Community College System of Nevada (Reno, Nevada), from 1996 to 1999, and the chief scientist at the South Coast Air Quality Management District from 1988 to 1996.

Dr. Lloyd's work focuses on the viable future of advanced technology and renewable fuels, with attention to urban air quality issues and global climate change. He is a proponent of efficiency, alternate and renewable fuels, and electric drive and fuel cell vehicles eventually leading to a zero emissions transportation system. Dr. Lloyd was the 2003 Chairman of the California Fuel Cell Partnership, a co-founder of the California Stationary Fuel Cell collaborative, and is a member, and prior co-Chairman, of the U.S. Department of Energy, Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical Advisory Committee (HTAC).

Dr. Lloyd earned both his B.S. in Chemistry and Ph.D. in Gas Kinetics at the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, U.K.

 

[jd3]

This is a great thread with lots of science and logic, absolutely excellent.

I'd like to suggest some other points that I, personally, felt were the most important for my decision and I believe will be for most folks. The day a "Big Auto" can meet these will be a tough day for Tesla I believe:

1. It is an absolutely BEAUTIFUL car! Everyone knows it's a Tesla if they can see the DRL's. Styling is excellent!

2. It uses CURRENT technology wherever...17" Touchscreen, no more miread of buttons, etc. Everyone who gets a chance to sit in my car is quickly sold on the ideas included in this car and has wondered why other auto manufacturers don't follow suit.

3. It DOESNT NEED SERVICE!!! When I explain to folks that their is only a single filler tube (for windshield washer fluid) they are amazed. The Toyota RAV4 EV has 3 of them in the engine compartment; which, by the way, is as packed as any ICE engine compartment BUT it uses TESLA technology, go figure!

4. Superchargers are a GAME CHANGER! Others can mimic; but, until they do, TESLA will have a wonderful advantage with great Market appeal. In the US, it is actually re-invigorating the Highway systems and I suspect will start getting more attention as the number of Supercharger sites continue to expand. Where else will you have a set of clientelle who are clearly upper-middle class and have 30 minutes to kill....food, shopping, tourism anyone!

5. Service Centers are really: Supercharger stations for their locations (at least HPWC's); Options Sales centers (that's where I bought my all weather mats!); Oh, and they do warrantee/service - in the CLEANEST service environment ever! I believe TESLA will tap into this asset more in the near future.

6. Stores: This EXPERIENCE center will continue to be the party and education center for Tesla and the Tesla family. Since it's in the Mall or someplace similar, we visit often! It's always interesting and I have seen many Tesla owners in the stores "selling" Teslas to the folks walking around. I don't think that happens at any Car Dealership?!

There are probably more and I think these are worth discussing. I will start by saying that I believe a competitor will need a majority of these to be able to reasonably compete...thoughts?

 

[Julian Cox]

@JD3

I cannot see any real competition on the horizon.

What I can see is that the Auto Industry has conceded that there is no such thing as an ICE vehicle that can take a sale from Tesla.

Forget about compliance cars and anything that costs more than its ICE equivalent. That is not competition (with gratitude to consumers that choose go the extra to support them none the less).

Dealer model is a millstone. Can't compete when a major part of the organisation and its sales channel is incentivised from engineering failure and customer inconvenience (see ELR recall for a software update - try persuading dealers to carry and push a product that the manufacturer can just service over the air with no recall bounty for the dealer).


What Mr Musk has proposed is that the Auto industry should be catalysed by Tesla to compete with it and bring forward competing EV programs.

Apparently the auto industry fundamentally disagrees, and their symbiont Big Oil has a stack of cheap Natural Gas to sell you if only it can find a way. CNG is hopelessly inefficient for running ICE vehicles and besides that, despite all attempts nobody believes that Natural Gas is environmentally sustainable no matter how much lobbying has gone into convincing folk that CNG is clean. Even politicians that majored in Art History think it's a fossil fuel (because it is).

Result: Not real competition, false competition. Reprocess Natural Gas to Hydrogen and see if you can't get a consensus to pretend it's green. As luck would have it, Dem. Art Majors have never heard any different and Rep. oil barons are laughing into their beards in agreement - I do believe it was a Texas oil man that proposed the whole policy to begin with while holding the office or POTUS.

Go figure.

Anyway the upshot for Tesla as I see it is much better than facing REAL competition. That would potentially limit growth. Now debunking false competition will be a real nasty battle, but win that and Tesla wins the Global Auto Industry, potentially a majority share of it some time in the coming 20 years as it scopes up abandoned NUMMI-type facilities world wide and repurposes them to build for a backlog of 10s millions of customers.

Game on I say.

 

[roblab]

BTW - this makes me sick. The guy below (bio) was the guy that was brought in under GW Bush / Schwarzenegger to head CARB at the critical juncture in the EV1 saga. A gas chemist and Fuel Cell guy.

CARB is a joke. Alan Lloyd as head of CARB, proponent of Fuel Cell Partnership, is a travesty. Obviously bought and paid for by Big Oil and Auto.

It makes me sick, too.