Competing technologies to BEV

[Tedkidd]

Julien, looks like you have us all supporting you. Are you up for a revision? One that follows the outline proposed by BSD:

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.

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.

 

[PonoBill]

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.

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.

 

[Auzie]

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.

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.

 

[Julian Cox]

As for long-term competition, I think one of two scenarios will happen:


2) FCV tech develops to the point where it might be a viable alternative to fossil fueled cars.

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.

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[Krugerrand]

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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

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.

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.

 

[The Blue Owl]

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.

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.)

 

[Julian Cox]

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.

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.

 

[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

 

[roblab]

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.

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.

 

[erha]

Aren't we getting a bit off topic here. What about making an own thread for Julian Cox' fuel cell letter?

 

[stopcrazypp]

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.

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

 

[pz1975]

Aren't we getting a bit off topic here. What about making an own thread for Julian Cox' fuel cell letter?

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.

 

[Auzie]

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.)

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 to one day become very similar to Big Oil and Big Auto:frown:, ie a company that is too big to change without serious structural damage. One day Tesla's hundreds of gigafactories will be disrupted by a start up that may come up with a more efficient way of transforming light to kinetic energy, thus eliminating the need to store energy.

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.

 

[The Blue Owl]

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 to one day become very similar to Big Oil and Big Auto:frown:, ie a company that is too big to change without serious structural damage. One day Tesla's hundreds of gigafactories will be disrupted by a start up that may come up with a more efficient way of transforming light to kinetic energy, thus eliminating the need to store energy.

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.

We're not disagreeing at all.

 

[Auzie]

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.

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.