VW Fallout: $2.0 Billion for ZEV Infrastructure Buildout

[McRat]

From: Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (uses gov't data)

• A future mid-size car in the 2035-2045 time frame, powered by fuel cells and using hydrogen generated from natural gas, is projected to have lifecycle GHG emissions slightly lower than that for a hybrid electric vehicle (HEV), powered by gasoline. A fuel cell vehicle would produce 200 grams of carbon dioxide-equivalent per mi (CO2e/mi), compared to 235g CO2e/mi for a HEV. An FCV would have near-zero lifecycle GHG emissions if the hydrogen were made, for example, from electrolysis powered by renewable electricity.

Not much of a goal, to someday reduce the GHG's below the 18 year old hybrids.

 

[Pollux]

Yeah. Just build a better Prius.

Meanwhile, we still need an electric grid that is zero emissions. Improvements in the grid mean that every existing BEV becomes cleaner than the day before. A 2016 Tesla on the CA grid will (hopefully, probably, likely) be an even cleaner car in 2026 than it is today. As for the 2035-2045 time frame, well... we had BETTER have a WAY better grid by then.

Now, let's go put a price on carbon.

 

[McRat]

We have greener technology today with EVs and plug-ins than the projected FCEV's of 2035 will be.

It is ridiculous to throw good money after bad. H2 was dead the minute the lithium battery was developed. H2 is unlikely to ever catch up, because the grid and the batteries are improving faster than H2 technology is.

 

[miimura]

Since this VW Settlement thread has turned to hydrogen talk, I should point out that VW already said that there would be no hydrogen spend in the first 30 month period of the settlement.

 

[Jeff N]

From: Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (uses gov't data)

• A future mid-size car in the 2035-2045 time frame, powered by fuel cells and using hydrogen generated from natural gas, is projected to have lifecycle GHG emissions slightly lower than that for a hybrid electric vehicle (HEV), powered by gasoline. A fuel cell vehicle would produce 200 grams of carbon dioxide-equivalent per mi (CO2e/mi), compared to 235g CO2e/mi for a HEV. An FCV would have near-zero lifecycle GHG emissions if the hydrogen were made, for example, from electrolysis powered by renewable electricity.

Not much of a goal, to someday reduce the GHG's below the 18 year old hybrids.

It's worth noting that a $23,000 gasoline hybrid Hyundai Ioniq liftback sedan, which the EPA categorizes as a "large car", emits an EPA estimated 184g CO2e/mi including upstream emissions today in 2017.

2017 Hyundai Ioniq Blue

 

[Pollux]

Since this VW Settlement thread has turned to hydrogen talk, I should point out that VW already said that there would be no hydrogen spend in the first 30 month period of the settlement.

Yes. But if you read the CARB document, there are chunky passages about the importance of being "technology neutral", which they define as hydrogen in addition to BEV. I'm tempted to wonder just how much of what they are doing is about the true potential they see in hydrogen versus the strong desire to appear as if they are not playing technology favorites.

So CARB is actively encouraging VW to invest in hydrogen infrastructure, even if that's not the direction VW wants to go. And I could easily imagine that in this first 30-month period, there will continue to be pressure from CARB up-front to do something visible with hydrogen. I don't think the 30-month investments have yet been set in stone! Moreover, if nothing gets done with hydrogen on this cycle, unless hydrogen is clearly dead **in CARB's eyes** by the next 30-month cycle, the pressure on VW to do something with hydrogen will only increase.

And if you dig through some of the comments, boy oh boy are they self-interested and shallow. For example, one company has older fuel cells and wants VW to pay to replace them with new Ballard cells. Wow.

Alan

 

[Pollux]

It's worth noting that a $23,000 gasoline hybrid Hyundai Ioniq liftback sedan, which the EPA categorizes as a "large car", emits an EPA estimated 184g CO2e/mi including upstream emissions today in 2017.

2017 Hyundai Ioniq Blue

Apparently, a big thing now is that one of the H2 cars can seat 5 instead of 4. Or maybe that's a future development, I can't recall with certainty.

So you're example, the Ioniq Blue, looks like it could seat 5 in a pinch. Today.

Plus, from what I've read so far, the FCEVs available now have lousy acceleration. So the Blue probably out-performs these FCEVs.

Finally, when I followed your link and pulled up the stats, I saw *154* g/mile rather than the 184 you cited. You're too conservative.

Alan

 

[Jeff N]

Finally, when I followed your link and pulled up the stats, I saw *154* g/mile rather than the 184 you cited. You're too conservative.

154 plus 30 for upstream emissions.

 

[Jeff N]

And if you dig through some of the comments, boy oh boy are they self-interested and shallow. For example, one company has older fuel cells and wants VW to pay to replace them with new Ballard cells. Wow.

Yep. It's a weird document.

They tell VW to be "transformative" but then tell them to dilute their focus by spreading the money around to various politically correct pet projects.

Many of the quoted public comments were from obviously self-dealing lobbyists and regional public agencies asking for their share of the $$.

Sad!

 

[miimura]

Yes. But if you read the CARB document, there are chunky passages about the importance of being "technology neutral", which they define as hydrogen in addition to BEV. I'm tempted to wonder just how much of what they are doing is about the true potential they see in hydrogen versus the strong desire to appear as if they are not playing technology favorites.

So CARB is actively encouraging VW to invest in hydrogen infrastructure, even if that's not the direction VW wants to go. And I could easily imagine that in this first 30-month period, there will continue to be pressure from CARB up-front to do something visible with hydrogen. I don't think the 30-month investments have yet been set in stone! Moreover, if nothing gets done with hydrogen on this cycle, unless hydrogen is clearly dead **in CARB's eyes** by the next 30-month cycle, the pressure on VW to do something with hydrogen will only increase.

And if you dig through some of the comments, boy oh boy are they self-interested and shallow. For example, one company has older fuel cells and wants VW to pay to replace them with new Ballard cells. Wow.

Alan

I expect VW to be as self-serving as they are allowed to be by EPA and CARB. They (Audi brand) will be introducing a long range BEV crossover that will need high power CCS charging stations, so I expect them to use the mandated expenditures to build a network to support that car. There is likely a lot of leeway to "waste" the money from our perspective, but I'm betting it will all benefit VW in some way.

Unless and until VW Group wants to sell a FCEV in the US, I don't expect them to spend any of their settlement money on hydrogen infrastructure. By the end of the first 30 month period we will have a pretty good idea whether hydrogen is actually going to go anywhere as a transportation fuel. Right now it's just abysmal because the stations funded by the State of California are taking forever to develop. I drive by the sites identified as under development in my area and there is absolutely no evidence of shovels hitting the ground and they were supposed to be online in Q4 2016 after being delayed from 1H 2016. It is simply not scalable on a national level when they have this much difficulty with the Bay Area and the LA basin.

 

[Jeff N]

I expect VW to be as self-serving as they are allowed to be by EPA and CARB.

That's my hope as well.

 

[McRat]

I'm 5th gen Californian and shook hands with Reagan back when we had a good government here.

DO NOT trust Sacramento or CARB to do the right thing. You've got a company that proved they are willing to break the law interacting with a government that does not have a reputation for honesty.

One of VW's programs is a Model City. Best way to game the system. Where does the head of CARB live? She already took a Mirai from Toyota.

 

[miimura]

That's my hope as well.

I would HOPE that they would act in the public interest, but I EXPECT them to act in their own interest.

 

[Jeff N]

I would HOPE that they would act in the public interest, but I EXPECT them to act in their own interest.

In this case, I think VW's own private interest may be a closer match to what I think the public interest is. The CARB is too obsessed with H2 and social equity, at least in terms of this investment program. They have other pots of money that they can better use for those interests including the $2.7 billion VW Appendix D money that will be managed by a trustee and doled out to public agencies.

In my opinion, the $2 billion VW "Appendix C" spending managed by VW's new ElectrifyAmerica subsidiary should be focused on building out a coherently planned national highway corridor fast DC charging infrastructure. That is the key missing part of the puzzle that keeps non-Tesla electric cars from being effective replacements for ICE cars. We need to fix that first. ASAP.

VW should only spend money on other investments if they have too much cash in each 30 month period and can't efficiently plan enough DC charging plazas to use all of the $500 million that they have to spend. That leftover money, if any, can then be spent on workplace and multi-unit residential charging, "green city" projects and other plans which could otherwise be funded through other means.

 

[RubberToe]

We are now two days past the deadline and no information has been published. I send the ARB and e-mail asking whats up. Will let you know if I hear back from them.

RT

 

[Pollux]

154 plus 30 for upstream emissions.

View attachment 216010

I see! I sit corrected.


Thank you,
Alan

 

[Pollux]

I'm 5th gen Californian and shook hands with Reagan back when we had a good government here.

DO NOT trust Sacramento or CARB to do the right thing. You've got a company that proved they are willing to break the law interacting with a government that does not have a reputation for honesty.

One of VW's programs is a Model City. Best way to game the system. Where does the head of CARB live? She already took a Mirai from Toyota.

What are your examples of CARB dishonesty?

Thanks,
Alan

 

[Jeff N]

We are now two days past the deadline and no information has been published. I send the ARB and e-mail asking whats up. Will let you know if I hear back from them.

RT

Thanks, I was just about to do the same. My guess is that VW doesn't want to release the draft (or they would do it themselves) and CARB/EPA is going along with that. We may not be able to see it until the draft is approved and final sometime around April.

 

[Pollux]

I need me an improved grid. Looking at the site @JeffN was pointing to, 2016 Model S P100D is "credited" with 120g/mile CO2 emission. (I had to follow another link to get to a special calculator just for EVs.) Average for P100D across US is 210g/mile. And average new car is 430 g/mile.

Alan

 

[McRat]

What are your examples of CARB dishonesty?

Thanks,
Alan

The most popular study concerning diesel particulate emissions was written by CARB. The death count was wildly exaggerated. Why? The "scientist" made up the data. Then it was found his PhD was a cheap mail-order scam, not UC Davis like he claimed. Did he get fired? No. Did he have to pay back the money for the extra PhD salary? No. Was the study removed? No. It's one thing to have scientists make up stuff. It's another to be rewarded for it with tax money.

Then H2 Fuel Cells. The head of CARB drives a Mirai, and California continues to spend hundreds of millions on H2 as a motor fuel. CARB does know that H2 produces about 9 times as much CO2 as gasoline hybrids today. It's not even expected to reach 1999 hybrid CO2 levels until at least 2035, but all their past estimations have been too optimistic.

The Automatic Leaking Gas Cans is another debacle. When it was found the system did not work, they refused to clean up the air by removing the law.