TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker or making a Paypal contribution here: paypal.me/SupportTMC

You can help California gov't realize EV Charging rather than Hydrogen makes sense

Discussion in 'Charging Standards and Infrastructure' started by gene, Jan 15, 2015.

  1. gene

    gene Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    1,015
    Location:
    Santa Barbara, CA
    There are other threads about batteries vs. hydrogen. But I wanted to start this one here in Charging Standards and Infrastructure, where it belongs.

    California is planning to spend much more money on hydrogen stations for a few cars made by Toyota and Honda of Japan versus very little money spent on more battery EV chargers for cars made in the USA and driven by a huge number of Californians.

    The letter below is not mine, but it touches on some excellent points. Maybe a few of you could write your own and email them appropriately:


    Here is the letter that I just sent to [email protected] and [email protected].
    It will be interesting to see whether they respond in any way. I wonder if any press in the
    state might be interested in the fact that the CEC has spent $40M of taxpayer money on
    hydrogen infrastructure but only about $150K on DCFCs in the last 2 years...


    Subject: Requesting information on CEC alternative vehicle infrastructure strategy

    Dear California Energy Commission,

    Thank you for recently publishing your report "2015‐2016 INVESTMENT PLAN
    UPDATE FOR THE ALTERNATIVE AND RENEWABLE FUEL AND VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY
    PROGRAM." I am happy to see that our state is investing in making
    alternative technology vehicles more practical to use here, and I
    appreciate that you are communicating your work so clearly.

    That said, I am concerned and somewhat alarmed by the choice of your
    investments of taxpayer funds; they do not seem to be consistent with your
    stated goals to "reduce greenhouse gas emissions, petroleum dependence,
    and criteria emissions" in an efficient manner. I am particularly
    concerned by the fact that you have spent twice as much ($40M vs $22M) on
    hydrogen refueling infrastructure than electric charging infrastructure in
    the 2013 - 2015 period, with little better planned for 2015 - 2016 (Table
    13, p. 4).

    I simply cannot understand this severe funding disparity given the current
    and near-future distribution of alternative energy vehicles in our state.
    There are about 100,000 battery electric vehicles (BEVs) in California,
    and I assume that there are currently 1000 or less hydrogen fuel vehicles.

    The many BEV users in California need and deserve better service. I was
    particularly disheartened and perplexed by the fact that you have deployed
    only 9 DC fast charging (DCFC) stations to date (late 2014), and you have
    adopted a strategy of deploying these in metropolitan areas instead of
    along long-distance travel corridors. A rudimentary network of commercial
    L2 and DCFC stations exist in our state's greater metropolitan areas, but
    we have nothing along long-distance corridors.

    The prompt installation of DCFC stations along long distance corridors is
    essential for enabling wider adoption of BEVs in our state. Current BEV
    owners are frustrated that we cannot travel long distances along high
    traffic (I5, 101) conveniently, and potential owners are put off from
    purchasing BEVs because this limitation restricts their utility.

    Frankly, it is disappointing to see so much money ($60M including planned
    2015 - 2016 expenditures) put into deploying a hydrogen infrastructure
    that will serve only a few thousand vehicles, largely in government or
    corporate fleets, while less than about $150K has been spent on DCFC
    stations that are needed today (9 stations x $15,000 mean cost per Table
    14, p. 36). I certainly hope that you have not adopted your strategy in
    order to ensure that BEVs fail to be adopted in our state.

    I do not understand how your investment decisions could have been made on
    concerns over either energy efficiency or the reduction of greenhouse
    gasses (GHGs) or other pollutants. As you are likely well aware, a large
    fraction (~30+%) of BEV owners in CA have added photo-voltaic solar panels to
    their homes, helping our state achieve its renewable energy goals. Current
    hydrogen vehicles are considerably less efficient than BEVs (considering
    the full fuel cycle), and the use of hydrogen does little to reduce GHG
    emissions given that it is derived from natural gas that is extracted with
    considerable leakage and then energy must be used to transport it, convert
    it to hydrogen and compress it before using in in vehicle fuel cells that
    are only about 65-70% efficient (vs ~90% for batteries).

    I do look forward to learning about the strategy that has driven your actions,
    and I would appreciate receiving any information or links to documents
    in this area. I do wish to gain a better understanding on what our elected
    officials have mandated and why the CEC is on its current path.

    Sincerely,
     
  2. Merrill

    Merrill Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2013
    Messages:
    2,096
    Location:
    Sonoma, California
    It will be interesting if they respond and what there response is, I have been saying this for some time and for the life of me cannot understand this stragety. When you can charge at home and use solar for so much less, and also less cost for infrastructure I do not get it.
     
  3. Johan

    Johan Took a TSLA bear test. Came back negative.

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,890
    Location:
    Drammen, Norway
    #3 Johan, Jan 15, 2015
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2015
    You can help California gov't realize EV Charging rather than Hydrogen makes ...

    Great letter but will never get the answer it deserves. CARB is corrupt to the bone:

    http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/docs/bio_lloyd.doc (The bio of former head of CARB Alan Lloyd can be found on hydrogen.energy.gov, where he was the former head).

    lloyd.jpg

    Current chairman (woman) Nichols continues his legacy.

    Therein lies your answer. Things that are hard to understand from a logical standpoint usually has but one explanation: $$$$$$$$$$$$$

    Bought and paid for by the hydrogen mafia.

    Also, if I may quote mr Julian Cox and roblab:

     

Share This Page