Hi Martin, Nice post. See below.
On Jul 31, 2014, at 9:25 AM, Martin WINLOW via EV <ev@lists.evdl.org> wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > I'll lay my cards on the table and say that I am distinctly anti H2 - *as a > short to medium-term serious contender for the replacement of petrol and > diesel-powered vehicles*. OK. > I have no massive problem with research continuing into fuel cells whether > powered by H2 or anything else. OK. > However, what I and many others object to, is the use of vast sums of public > money being spent by Big Oil to continue their virtual monopoly on what is > essentially a basic human right to travel without relying on flakey or > non-existant public transport. Big Oil currently has a monopoly because few > of us have the means to produce our own 'oil'. Ok. I mostly get that. In fact, having spent part of my career battling direct emissions by BO (small oil, too), and indirect emissions as you articulate, and pressing for alt transportation, I could have easily written that a number of years ago. > If allowed to, BO will continue to run this monopoly by being the sole > providers of H2 as, again, it is effectively impossible for individuals to > 'roll their own'. This is where I think you need to reevaluate. BO is "not" part of any monopoly of H2 suppliers. H2 is mostly NOT from BO. Most H2 right now come from industrial gas companies, who are not related to BO. When CARB went to pass a rule requiring BO to put in fueling infrastructure for H2, one company even said something along the lines of "why should we pay to speed our own demise." As I've recently pointed out here, you should take a look at who is getting funding from the state to put in H2 fueling infrastructure. In fact, look at who has applied. You will see no BO names there. Lastly, take a look at the membership of both the CA Fuel Cell Partnership and the California Hydrogen Business Council (where I am currently board president). You won't see any BO names either. BO used to be part of the Partnership, but dropped out years ago. So please look at the facts on BO involvement. You'll see a few things here and there, Shell ownership of the Torrance station, which actually gets their H2 from a different (none BO) company. But fact is, they have little, if any, involvement. > > Electric vehicles, on the other hand, are an entirely different matter. > Today it is quite possible for an individual to generate all the electricity > s/he could need - including that for an EV - on the roof of their own house > (assuming it is big enough). This idea scares the Hell out of Big Oil for > obvious reasons. Not much of the energy comes that way, though you are right, it could. Almost none of the infrastructure being paid for by public funds is produced that way either. As far as H2, most is not produced that way either. And while it currently isn't economically feasible (by most measures) to do so, it is also possible. There is at least one unit on the market that can do this, at least one other that is in development, with more to come as technology improves and costs drop. But this is certainly longer term, and as you say, today we can do that with BEVs. But as far as the renewable aspect of the fuel, there has been a real groundswell in the industry that is demanding renewable H2. The OEMs are saying that their customers want it. They are saying that their customers want clean vehicles, and renewable fuels are part if that. And I am also seeing a recognition among the industrial gas companies that recognize that to be successful, they will need to provide renewable hydrogen. > > That is my principle problem with H2FCVs. Understood, but the main premise of your reason is not correct factually. > > But it does not stop there. There are many other very good reasons why > H2FCVs are a 'bad idea' and the very next one on my list is the fact that the > efficiency of the whole system is dreadful when compared to BEVs - barely > better than ICEVs. I'll let others name the rest of the list - or you could > research it yourself... Start with the fact that Southern California is > talking about installing just a dozen H2 refuelling stations at a combined > cost of some $6m and then consider that there are some 120 thousand gas > stations in the US... On the other hand, consider that every single home in > the land has at least one EV 'refuelling station' in it already in the form > of a standard mains receptacle... Though this almost argues for putting *no* funding into BEV infrastructure, if every house has a "station" already. I disagree with that, but that's only my opinion. Clearly, there are pros and cons with every technology, H2 and BEVs included. That's why there is no silver bullet. > > To my mind, spending the, frankly, obscene amounts of public money that > providing even a barely adequate H2 refuelling infrastructure would cost > rather than one the one hundredth of that amount that providing a truly world > class public rapid charging infrastructure would cost is completely insane. > We'd just be repeating the mistakes of the past and allowing BO and their > revolting bed-fellows to contiHi Mark, > > I'll lay my cards on the table and say that I am distinctly anti H2 - *as a > short to medium-term serious contender for the replacement of petrol and > diesel-powered vehicles*. I have no massive problem with research continuing > into fuel cells whether powered by H2 or anything else. However, what I and > many others object to, is the use of vast sums of public money being spent by > Big Oil to continue their virtual monopoly on what is essentially a basic > human right to travel without relying on flakey or non-existant public > transport. Big Oil currently has a monopoly because few of us have the means > to produce our own 'oil'. If allowed to, BO will continue to run this > monopoly by being the sole providers of H2 as, again, it is effectively > impossible for individuals to 'roll their own'. > > Electric vehicles, on the other hand, are an entirely different matter. > Today it is quite possible for an individual to generate all the electricity > s/he could need - including that for an EV - on the roof of their own house > (assuming it is big enough). This idea scares the Hell out of Big Oil for > obvious reasons. > > That is my principle problem with H2FCVs. > > But it does not stop there. There are many other very good reasons why > H2FCVs are a 'bad idea' and the very next one on my list is the fact that the > efficiency of the whole system is dreadful when compared to BEVs - barely > better than ICEVs. I'll let others name the rest of the list - or you could > research it yourself... Start with the fact that Southern California is > talking about installing just a dozen H2 refuelling stations at a combined > cost of some $6m and then consider that there are some 120 thousand gas > stations in the US... On the other hand, consider that every single home in > the land has at least one EV 'refuelling station' in it already in the form > of a standard mains receptacle... > > To my mind, spending the, frankly, obscene amounts of public money that > providing even a barely adequate H2 refuelling infrastructure would cost > rather than one the one hundredth of that amount that providing a truly world > class public rapid charging infrastructure would cost is completely insane. > We'd just be repeating the mistakes of the past and allowing BO and their > revolting bed-fellows to continue to take the micky out of us all and carry > on running, laughing their fat little heads off, all the way to the > (off-shore) bank. > > MW > > >> On 29 Jul 2014, at 18:55, Michael K Johnson via EV wrote: >> >> Speaking as a newbie to the list (last November), I've been surprised >> by the levels of invective levelled at H2. There have been a lot of >> assumptions that it cannot possibly ever be efficiently produced >> without a bad carbon footprint, and lots (my perception) of ad hominem >> attacks. I'd like to think that if we can find ways to efficiently and >> cleanly produce new battery technologies, we could have our minds open >> to the possibility of clean H2 generation, separating the issue that >> in practice right now most H2 generation is very dirty from the >> question of different forms of chemically storing electrical energy in >> the long run. >> >> Change to allow H2 discussion, or continue to ban it, but the >> derogatory language about it gets tiresome and I'll bet it turns off >> more people than just me. When looking for problems to police, if you >> want to police H2 discussions, I would suggest to include in the >> policing derogatory comments about the technology and people as well >> as promotion and technical discussion thereof. Complaining only about >> the promotion and letting the derogatory comments slide is kind of a >> one-sided enforcement of the rules. >> >> My 2¢, do what you like, I'm hardly a major contributor here. ☺ >> >> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:30 PM, EVDL Administrator via EV >> <ev@lists.evdl.org> wrote: >>> The original EVDL charter, written by our founder Clyde Visser back in the >>> internet's dim past (1991) says, "the energy storage device [for an EV] ... >>> can [be a] ... fuel cell ..." >>> >>> But not too far into this long history of the EVDL - I think about 1995 or >>> so - we had a pretty detailed discussion about discussion of FCEVs and H2. >>> We even took a vote, and folks decided that we'd minimize FCEV and H2 >>> discussion. >>> >>> Was that a mistake? Is it a mistake to continue on that road? The folks >>> who say that H2 is the way forward surely think so. >>> >>> Well, if it is, we're still making it today. (Hint, hint.) >>> >>> You know, one of the huge advantages of the internet is that, unlike >>> broadcast spectrum, it's effectively just about infinite. Unlike newspapers >>> and magazines, it's dirt-cheap to make your voice heard, at least so far. >>> >>> There's room for lots more internet discussion forums like this one. >>> Somewhere there has to be a place where H2 and FCEV enthusiasts can >>> congregate. If not, it's almost trivial to start one. >>> >>> Thus I will refer y'all to the EVDL conventions: >>> >>> http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#conv >>> >>> Please read point 2f. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA >>> EVDL Administrator >>> > > _______________________________________________ > UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub > http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org > For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA > (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) > _______________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
