-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
VW Fallout: $2.0 Billion for ZEV Infrastructure Buildout
- Thread starter RubberToe
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
As required by a court-supervised legal settlement. If they don't spend each cycle's $500 million they have to pay penalties.Four 30 month investment cycles ... 10 years, really VW?
mspohr
Well-Known Member
It will be hard to gear up to spend that much money. They will have to hit the ground running.
If they are allowed to charge off on regulatory costs, they can chew up $500 million in the West in a year without building anything. Most of the West in under control of the EPA and BLM. If killer bees could be harmed by an EV charger during a 9.0 earthquake, it will cost millions on the studies before they understand how stupid they look and drop it. But it does let the bureaucrats wet their beaks.
@RT - thank you for continuing to bird-dog this issue.
While their overall plan sounds lovely, I wonder what hides in the details. There's a pretty big gap in usability between "50-150+".
Also, I would welcome an integral restriction on hydrogen: only deployment of hydrogen-based systems that are zero carbon emissions. As a practical matter: no steam methane reforming, no production of hydrogen from methane or any other fossil fuel source. While I've switched my position from vaguely supportive of a hydrogen fuel cell-based transportation system to strongly against, possibly my single biggest concern is that the hydrogen-based system turns out as a practical matter to perpetuate a dependence on fossil fuels. Deriving hydrogen from water electrolysis turns out to consume many multiples of the same power that could be devoted to BEV and is dollar-expensive, too. So all the hydrogen guys are waving their hands madly and under the covers relying on methane. And CARB, for some reason, is subsidizing hydrogen fuel cell deployment!?!?
Thanks,
Alan
While their overall plan sounds lovely, I wonder what hides in the details. There's a pretty big gap in usability between "50-150+".
Also, I would welcome an integral restriction on hydrogen: only deployment of hydrogen-based systems that are zero carbon emissions. As a practical matter: no steam methane reforming, no production of hydrogen from methane or any other fossil fuel source. While I've switched my position from vaguely supportive of a hydrogen fuel cell-based transportation system to strongly against, possibly my single biggest concern is that the hydrogen-based system turns out as a practical matter to perpetuate a dependence on fossil fuels. Deriving hydrogen from water electrolysis turns out to consume many multiples of the same power that could be devoted to BEV and is dollar-expensive, too. So all the hydrogen guys are waving their hands madly and under the covers relying on methane. And CARB, for some reason, is subsidizing hydrogen fuel cell deployment!?!?
Thanks,
Alan
Tesla doesn't seem to have had much trouble putting DC chargers in quickly. There is no reason why VW should be different. As long as they have to spend the money they are going to want charging infrastructure that will help them compete against Tesla on future sales.
Whoa, I have been asleep at the wheel since I missed this when it was released. On February 10th, CARB sent VW a letter providing guidance on how they want VW to spend the funds. Here is a link to that 38 page letter.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/vw_info/vsi/vw-zevinvest/documents/carb_guidance_021017.pdf
I don't have time to get into too much detailed analysis of that right now, but basically they go through each item in the consent decree and say what they "urge" VW to do. Here is the section discussing "Initial Priority on ZEV Infrastructure":
Can't argue with the following: "We would expect to be able to count ZEV fueling stations and measure the public awareness effectiveness by the end of the first 30 months rather than receive reports of planned fueling sites and planned outreach efforts"
RT
https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/vw_info/vsi/vw-zevinvest/documents/carb_guidance_021017.pdf
I don't have time to get into too much detailed analysis of that right now, but basically they go through each item in the consent decree and say what they "urge" VW to do. Here is the section discussing "Initial Priority on ZEV Infrastructure":
Can't argue with the following: "We would expect to be able to count ZEV fueling stations and measure the public awareness effectiveness by the end of the first 30 months rather than receive reports of planned fueling sites and planned outreach efforts"
RT
Public Awareness dollars should be coming from the auto producers, including VW, not at the expense of infrastructure.
Millions of dollars of commercials will have little effect. Tesla sells with no advertising, and big advertisers, such as Toyota, Nissan, or GM, have not produced a good return on investment in EV adoption via marketing. The car makers 'sell' their Green cars, and let the ZEV dollars to into completing the grid.
Millions of dollars of commercials will have little effect. Tesla sells with no advertising, and big advertisers, such as Toyota, Nissan, or GM, have not produced a good return on investment in EV adoption via marketing. The car makers 'sell' their Green cars, and let the ZEV dollars to into completing the grid.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Current CARB rules specify that H2 must be 33% from renewable resources. Currently it's 45%. (mostly from biogas... still wasteful)
Hi, @mspohr, can you please supply me a pointer to where the 33% number is specified? And maybe another pointer to the 45% number?
Thanks,
Alan
P.S. 33%?!?! Even 45%?!?! Yuck. Especially given that a hydrogen vehicle is an EV with a fuel cell tacked on. Even when the hydrogen is zero-emission, at least for distilled hydrogen the energy use is many multiples of that required for delivering electricity to a battery. (Although I dunno if that's the case for biogas.)
Thanks,
Alan
P.S. 33%?!?! Even 45%?!?! Yuck. Especially given that a hydrogen vehicle is an EV with a fuel cell tacked on. Even when the hydrogen is zero-emission, at least for distilled hydrogen the energy use is many multiples of that required for delivering electricity to a battery. (Although I dunno if that's the case for biogas.)
mspohr
Well-Known Member
I got this from the latest 2016 annual report on H2 from CARB
https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/ab8/ab8_report_2016.pdf
The 33% figure is in the original law (AB8) and referenced in this report.
Unfortunately, they are very optimistic about H2 and are proceeding full steam ahead... read it and weep.
There are "Contact us" links on this page:
California Hydrogen Activities
I have had in person discussions with CARB members and they have no doubts about H2.
Skimming it now... love this quote:
- California’s on-the-road FCEV population is now projected to grow to 13,500 vehicles in 2019 and 43,600 vehicles in 2022. Auto manufacturer survey responses indicate fewer vehicles will be launched prior to 2018 than previously projected. However, the survey results also show this delay will be matched by acceleration in later years and the difference will be recovered by 2020.
So... less than projected but the manufacturers promise that it will turn around...
Similar threads
