cars

L.A. Times: ‘Hydrogen fuel-cell technology won’t work in cars’

"Honda's striking, amazing hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle may be the most expensive, advanced and impractical car ever built."

So writes Dan Neil, the L. A. Times car guy in "Honda FCX Clarity: Beauty for beauty's sake" (see here, vehicle details here).

You will never buy a hydrogen car. And I say that mostly because I know that in the unlikely event a major car company actually ever tries to sell you one, you are just way too smart to bite or even nibble. And I say that not because you read ClimateProgress, but because you are breathing at all. Hydrogen cars are simply too impractical.

It is time for President Obama and Energy Secretary Chu to drastically scale back the federal hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle program, to a small basic research program focused on long-term breakthroughs in hydrogen storage, fuel cells, and renewable hydrogen. This could free up some $1 billion in Obama's first term alone for more important R&D and more urgent deployment efforts (see here).

The hydrogen emperor has no clothes. This isn't news overseas (see here). Nor is it news that the Honda FCX is a lemon, tangible proof of the futility of pursuing the commercialization of hydrogen cars (see here).

But it is a big deal to see the car guy of the L.A. Times -- in the home state of many of the last remaining hydrogen diehards, the state that had until recently seriously entertained building a "hydrogen highway" -- dismantle the vehicle in his review, so I'll reprint it below:

Nearly 1,500 more cars in Beijing daily

BEIJING — Nearly 1,500 cars a day have been added to Beijing’s streets since the start of the year, state media said on Tuesday, indicating new curbs on driving had not dampened the desire for automobiles. The already gridlocked and heavily polluted Chinese capital registered 65,970 new motor vehicles in the first 45 days of […]

A price signal in the vehicle market is best applied to the vehicle

Proponents of raising the gas tax -- and the chattering class is littered with them these days -- have a simple, central argument: gas taxes create a market signal that pushes all vehicle consumers in the direction of fuel efficiency.

Indeed, some conservatives (and car companies) go further: they say that CAFE standards are bad policy because they force automakers to create products for which there's no demand. It's no good making fuel-efficient cars if nobody wants to buy them! (Americans love big, powerful cars. "Everybody knows" that.) Higher gas taxes should replace CAFE, because they create create demand instead of forcing supply.

A moment's thought reveals a serious flaw in these arguments. Fuel costs are a relatively low portion of total vehicle costs -- maybe 10-20 percent. There's maintenance, insurance, parking, but most of all, the price of the car.

And when the time comes to buy a car, people don't behave like the rational interest maximizers of economic myth. They rarely calculate out future costs like fuel. They consider the number on the price tag in front of them: the price of the car.

It follows that if you want a market signal, you should put it where it will have the most effect: on the price of the car.

As it happens, we have a policy like that! Let's hand the mic to John Heywood, who has headed the Sloan Automotive Laboratory since 1972:

I think we need a purchase tax, a feebate system, like the French have instituted fairly recently. Fees for high-consuming vehicles and rebates for low-consuming vehicles. That will help reinforce consumer response to CAFE requirements by providing a market incentive.

There you go. A clear price signal, applied at the point of maximum effect, supplementing rather than replacing fuel efficiency standards. CAFE standards push automakers to make fuel-efficient cars; feebates push consumers to buy them. (Oh, and unlike gas taxes, feebates aren't regressive.)

How is this not a preferable policy, both economically and politically? What am I missing?

A zero-emission bus tours California, Toyota flirts with ethanol, and more green auto news

Thursday in San Francisco, it was easier to get an electric bus than an electric car. Proterra, a commercial hybrid- and electric-vehicle manufacturer in Golden, Colo., finished its weeklong California clean bus tour in the city by the bay. The sleek EcoRide BE35 climbed the hills of San Francisco, flaunting its environmental and fiscal charms […]

New site to teach students about green vehicle technology

When you’ve got a spare moment for some mechanical learning, or know a student who does, take a look at the nifty new FuelOurFutureNow.com. The interactive knowledge center is designed to help K-12 students learn about vehicle technology, energy efficiency, climate change, alternative fuels, and the science, technology, engineering, and math that underlie fuel-efficient vehicle […]

Save the North American biped!

Chevy Volt could cut costs by using batteries more efficiently and paying less for them

In a excellent piece this week, Joe Romm reiterated why battery changing stations don't make sense for electric cars. But he also argued that plug-in electric ranges of more than 20 miles do not make sense because cost gets too high for too little benefit. This seems a reasonable deduction from high (and rising) costs for the Chevy Volt. But this is a case where the efficiency could be cheaper than conservation.

Consuming 0.4 kWh per mile electricity usage, the Volt currently uses a $10,000 16 kWh battery capacity for a 40-mile range. But lots of electric cars get better mileage than that. For example, the Triac only consumes about 0.23 kWh per mile. Admitting this is fairly extreme, there is no reason a car that needs less than half the battery range (and thus does not need to carry as much battery weight) can't keep its power consumption around 0.27 kWh per mile, which would make battery capacity 11 kWh rather than 16 kWh.

Senate hones in on crucial need for country: more cars

I was chatting the other day with Jack Hidary, chair of SmartTransportation.org, about the "cash for clunkers" bill he's been pushing up on the Hill (watch him debate the bill with all-purpose dumbass Patrick Michaels here).

On balance I'm a big fan of the idea -- offering vouchers toward the purchase of new fuel-efficient cars or transit passes to those who turn in old gas guzzlers -- though there are reasons for caution, well-described by Rob Inglis here. After all, there's a lot of energy and emissions involved in manufacturing new cars. Would removing the oldest of the gas guzzlers still be a net economic and climate gain? It's a subject worth investigating and debating.

You know what isn't worth investigating or debating? You know what policy would absolutely, certainly, no-doubt-about-it suck from both an economic and climate perspective? Just giving people tax money to buy new cars, with no restrictions. You know, just to get more cars made and sold and on the road.

Naturally, the Senate is taking the latter route.

We are ruled by idiots.

US EPA opens public comment period on California emissions waiver

The Environmental Protection Agency administrator announced Friday that the agency is beginning the process of reevaluating the request from California and 13 other states to set tough new automobile emissions standards. The move, announced by EPA chief Lisa Jackson, follows on President Obama’s directive last month that the agency take a look at the issue […]