GRA
Well-known member
Sorry you see it that way, but you are quite wrong. I have done plenty of research on the failure modes and problems of H2, and have discussed them in that thread and elsewhere at length. But I know that H2 lags the development cycle of BEVs by about five years, so consider most comments about the shortcomings premature and/or irrelevant to what the fully-developed system will be (must be, if it is to succeed). Besides, I regard the whole business model of H2 fueling as having far more kinship to gas stations than to quick charging stations, so the potential failure areas are very different. Once H2 reaches the same stage of development and infrastructure as BEVs (and their infrastructure) are now, I'll be a lot more critical of operational failures and shortcomings. Now, it's just a waste of time; I acknowledge the problems, state what I think needs to be done to fix them and monitor as many sources as I can to see if they are being fixed (to take an example, way back I mentioned accurate metering of H2 as dispensed as one such issue, which has now been provided).RegGuheert said:
As to being here to _berate_ BEVs at every opportunity, oh, come on! What, are you going to be the latest to call me an anti-EV troll? On average someone does so about once a year, so I guess I'm due. As I've said on numerous occasions, I'm technology neutral; I have less concern about _how_ we electrify transportation and get off fossil fuels than that we do so, and will happily use whichever method suits my needs best. For reasons I've given in the H2 thread, at the moment H2 comes closest to doing so, and that's the extent of my 'bias' towards it. If BEVs can do what I need them to do at the same or lower cost as FCVs when the time comes for me to replace my current car (assuming I don't need to get a PHEV in the interim), I'll happily choose the more energy efficient option.
No. To take this particular case as an example, I asked whether the improved cord handling (and hopefully lower cost) will prove to be an improvement overall on cost and reliability grounds, and mentioned a few points that occur to me. That's not disparagement. If it proves out, great, if not they know they've got something that works without it. I save my disparagement for decisions like the Falcon Wing doors, the initial transcontinental SC route, Nissan's doing without a TMS and their handling of the degradation issue, the i3's crippled REx, etc.RegGuheert said:
If by 'praise' you mean I mention and discuss it, and comment on whether I think it is or will be be an improvement or not, well, I guess by that definition I do praise it. But how do you reconcile that with my frequent reiteration of the point that H2 isn't commercially viable now, and won't be for some years without major improvement in costs? If I were an H2 fan boy I'd be saying all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds, it's ready for prime time and ICEs and BEVs are doomed, today. Have I ever made any such ridiculous claims (unlike many BEV fanboys in this and other BEV forums, who make such claims for BEVs on a regular basis, although the frequency has dropped off some over the past few years as greater experience has been acquired and reality has intruded)?RegGuheert said:
Reg, if efficiency trumped everything, you and the majority of Americans wouldn't be living in detached single family homes and driving cars to work with only yourself in them. The U.S. isn't the rest of the world, but I fully agree that H2 has a tougher row to hoe financially in this country than in others.RegGuheert said:
Tesla has made a product improved in one area (handling), and potentially in another (increased power handling capability). We don't yet have any data about the effect on overall costs or reliability; that is certainly Tesla's hope, and I wish them well. The potential downsides are real; the fact that I muse about them doesn't indicate any bias against them on my part, just a reasonable concern as to whether the added complexity will pan out. While my basic attitude is to leave out anything that isn't essential, if that additional piece provides improved capability the addition may well be worth it, as in the case of TMS/no-TMS, where I (currently) come down firmly on the side of additional complexity/cooling.RegGuheert said:
Or how about that expertly-designed SC site in, I think it was Inyokern but it might have been Lone Pine or Mojave? You know, the one that wasn't fully operational for something like a month after completion, because the concrete parking bumpers were too high (hit and damaged air dams, and forced people to park too far away from the pedestals for the cord to reach without stress), and Tesla had to send out crews to grind the bumpers down to provide clearance; in fact, they had to send a crew out a second time to grind it down further. Before the first time, did they not measure the cars loaded to their GVWR with allowances for both production tolerances and wear? 
