cwerdna
Posts: 10777
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 4:31 pm
Delivery Date: 28 Jul 2013
Location: SF Bay Area, CA

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Sat Jul 11, 2020 2:05 am

^^^
GRA's a puzzler. There's no way I've read all his posts and i've ribbed him a few times about why not a BEV including most recently at viewtopic.php?p=586422#p586422.

It still strikes me as really weird that someone could be here this long (since Sep 2011), spend so much time here, have over 11K posts (more than me and keep posting about charging infrastructure, EVs/PHEVs and H2 cars/infrastructure yet he won't buy a lease an EV or PHEV or hydrogen FCEV either. How about a non-plugin hybrd? I've spoken to a former MNL regular about GRA and he also agrees w/me about the weirdness.

I would've gotten a Leaf likely in 2011 if it weren't for my unknown job, commute distance and charging situation when I was not working. Not long after I resumed working (which happened to be at a place w/a decent EV charging situation and not at all beyond range of 24 kWh Leaf), I leased a '13 Leaf at around end of July 2013. I was interested, wanted to try and put my $ where my mouth was. I've had a BEV ever since.

I have no more ICEVs as of Feb 2019.

His sig currently has "The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'". I'm not clear GRA's wants may be achievable at the price he wants in a new vehicle given inflation and Federal tax credit phaseout on EVs. I don't claim to remember all his details on his supposed long trips, but my last roadtrip was in mid-2017 in which I took my former 06 Prius (which I had for about 13 years). I don't have it any longer and haven't done a single roadtrip since.

I wouldn't be surprised if a Leaf Plus or Bolt (as I hinted used Bolts are cheap) w/DC FC inlet could be MORE than adequate for his most of his needs and he could just rent a car a few times where it doesn't. That's my plan. If Bolt's not practical, I rent a car or fly.

Bolt when I got mine w/full tax credit was heavily discounted and was effectively well over $10K (IIRC $12K to $14K) less than the cheapest 3 at the time (3 MR) w/what tax credit Tesla had. There were many reasons why I didn't want a 3. And, other than price to some degree, almost none of my issues have been addressed. That $ difference also rents a lot of cars and/or buys a lot of plane tickets.

'19 Bolt Premier
'13 Leaf SV w/premium (owned)
'13 Leaf SV w/QC + LED & premium (lease over)

Please don't PM me with Leaf questions. Just post in the topic that seems most appropriate.

GRA
Posts: 12073
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Sat Jul 11, 2020 2:52 pm

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 1:54 am
GRA wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 1:14 am
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 7:18 pm


I too carry an emergency blanket, tape, wrench set, rags, bottled water, jack, fix-a-flat kit, and a portable inflator.
If I hit something that needs the tire replaced, then I've done something really stupid. If I hit two nails, the fix-a-flat can cover it, while a spare tire won't.

I drive 20,000 miles a year, but most of it commuting miles (because my wife works in the opposite direction, so our combined miles would be the same regardless of where we live. So we chose to live where the schools are good. I vacation travel about as much as you do, ~2000 miles annually.

I admit that Lassen was the most out of the way I've gone so far, but it's not like I'm done taking trips. I don't use mass transit, because my EV's pollute (I pay a little bit more for SCE's 100% renewables electricity supply) much less than the bus (although they've begun adding more battery busses lately, so it might all balance out soon). And having kids preclude me from biking everywhere, especially considering that I'm more likely to die on a bicycle on these city roads.

Look, I've already said before I could care less how you justify your life. My major beef is how you take your pre-conceived notions about BEV's and actively socialize it, discouraging people from seriously considering BEV's and directly benefitting from the switch. You are part of the problem by being a cognitive speedbump.

I'd written a reply to this and thought I'd posted it, but it seems to have disappeared. In it I pointed out your own shortcomings re environmental purity, among them by living where you have to commute by car (one of you needs to change jobs, no matter how inconvenient and disruptive it might be; the environment demands it). I'm guessing you also live in a detached, single-family home, the most energy and resource intensive firm of housing there is.And then there's your biggest environmental purity failure, with the longest lasting environmental impact of all: having kids. You're in no position to criticize anyone else re their environmental decisions.


BTW, among the 'pre-conceived notions' that you seem to criticize me for is my unwillingness to depend on single QCs for roadtrips owing to a lack of redundancy. Tell me, is DaveinOlyWa, now driving I believe his 5th LEAF, also suffering from 'pre-conceived notions' when he recently wrote in the 'Electrify America Network's that:.
I was supposed to be on day one of a trip crossing the Cascades to Spokane, down to Bend OR and back up the Oregon Coast. But 40% of the EA chademo's I had planned to check out were recently confirmed as broken (some not so recent!) with no good check ins or comments from EA other than to acknowledge they are down so that was one reason I am heading to another trip instead
Or you could check out Doug wants a Leafs lists about the EA Ogallala CHAdeMO appearing and disappearing from operational status, as he's deoendent on it to visit family. As you may or may not know, EA sites have just one CHAdeMO. Was Doug (3rd LEAF) Falso suffering from Preconceived notion?
I minimize my environmental impact where I can.

As do I, by choosing to live in a small, well-insulated apartment which I heat partly by passive solar and keep colder than many would find comfortable, in a location that allows me to commute and do virtually all my errands by some combination of foot, bike and electrified mass transit, allowing me to leave my car in my driveway for weeks at a time.

But I don't kid myself that I couldn't do even more, if minimizing my environmental footprint were my sole consideration. It's not, and obviously it isn't for you either, as you're a self-admitted car-commuting breeder, so where do you get the chutzpah to lecture anyone else about their supposed 'hypocrisy'? Unlike you I freely acknowledge that I could do more, IF I were willing to only consider environmental concerns and ignore all others. I'm not and neither are you; the difference is I admit it, as a self-proclaimed 80%er. You don't.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 1:54 am
And you're the one bringing up "environmental purity". It's just a deflection tactic you're using to hide your hypocrisy.

See above, and take a good look in the mirror.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 1:54 am
The other leaf owners are able to successfully deal with an occasional downed qc station just fine.
If your definition of 'dealing with it just fine' is by having to postpone or abandon a trip, then I guess they do. That's not my definition, nor most people's.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 1:54 am
They don't let it affect the remaining 95% of the time the leaf benefits them.
Just as I don't let it affect the remaining 95% of the time my feet, bike and use of electrified mass transit benefits me, instead of using a much less energy-efficient and much more resource-intensive BEV. They've made choices based on what compromises they're willing to make in their lifestyle, just as I have, or you. I don't accuse them of hypocrisy, because their circumstances aren't mine, and they aren't me. So why do you feel entitled to criticize my choices, given your own 'hypocrisy'?

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 1:54 am
Just like how you're able to deal with an occasional flat tire or car that won't start and needs a jump, a few hiccups along the way isn't the end of the world. Stop making excuses for being an EV hater. Saying that you support electric vehicles, while simultaneously spreading FUD about BEV's and espousing the promises of H2 as being "comparable" is dishonest.

There you go again, claiming I'm an EV hater with absolutely no proof. I'm a supporter of all EVs, however the electricity is supplied, as a way to get off fossil fuels. I happily recommend HEVs, PHEVs, BEVs, and/or FCEVs to anyone who asks, the choice being based on which suits their situation best. I also give them the pros and cons of each, because unlike you I'm not wedded to a particular tech, but recognize that each has strengths and weaknesses. And I recognize that the final decision is theirs even if I think it's sub-optimal and would make a different one. I'm happy to see fossil fuel use reduced however little or much every person is willing to do so, because absent my being appointed dictator I have no power to impose my values on anyone else.

And now, I'm off to climb Mt. Shasta, burning 25 or so gallons of gas driving there and back, plus a few ounces of propane/butane mix running my stove, and the embodied fossil fuel energy in the food I'll be eating, not forgetting the extra food energy I'll be using by packing out my feces so as to avoid contaminating the water supply, inside a paper bag filled with kitty litter which in turn is carried inside a hopefully leakproof plastic bag. So I will be out of touch for several days.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA
Posts: 12073
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Sat Jul 11, 2020 4:13 pm

cwerdna wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 2:05 am
^^^
GRA's a puzzler. There's no way I've read all his posts and i've ribbed him a few times about why not a BEV including most recently at viewtopic.php?p=586422#p586422.

It still strikes me as really weird that someone could be here this long (since Sep 2011), spend so much time here, have over 11K posts (more than me and keep posting about charging infrastructure, EVs/PHEVs and H2 cars/infrastructure yet he won't buy a lease an EV or PHEV or hydrogen FCEV either. How about a non-plugin hybrd? I've spoken to a former MNL regular about GRA and he also agrees w/me about the weirdness.

Could it be that I recognize the importance of and support the transition to EVs of whatever type, while recognizing that they don't yet meet my needs? I suppose I could move further away from work and errands so that instead of being able to walk and bike for all of them, driving a (BEV) car would be necessary. Does this seem like a better solution from an environmental and financial standpoint than my current one, given that I'll still need an ICE/HEV/PHEV for trips and already own one which gets cheaper every year I keep it, until such time as I can replace it with a ZEV which actually meets my requirements? Not to me, it doesn't.

cwerdna wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 2:05 am
I would've gotten a Leaf likely in 2011 if it weren't for my unknown job, commute distance and charging situation when I was not working. Not long after I resumed working (which happened to be at a place w/a decent EV charging situation and not at all beyond range of 24 kWh Leaf), I leased a '13 Leaf at around end of July 2013. I was interested, wanted to try and put my $ where my mouth was. I've had a BEV ever since.

Great, you bought one once it met some of your needs, and bought a longer-ranged one that met more if not all of them. And I've been putting my money where my mouth is, by avoiding routine car use for the past 20 years. My current bike cost me just under a grand. If I could have found another used one to replace the old one with a cracked seat tube I would have, the 3Rs being an ingrained part of my environmental behavior, but after looking for a month and not finding any suitable ones (and commuting by car in the interim), I gave up and bought new.

Still $1k for a 30 lb. bike that uses no electricity and helps keep me healthy is a lot cheaper and more environmentally beneficial than $30-$40k for a 3,500-4,000 lb. BEV that does use electricity and doesn't keep me healthy, which also uses far more resources in its manufacture, contains toxic materials which will need to be recycled properly, and which adds far more to road congestion owing to its size. Wouldn't you agree?


cwerdna wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 2:05 am
I have no more ICEVs as of Feb 2019.

His sig currently has "The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'". I'm not clear GRA's wants may be achievable at the price he wants in a new vehicle given inflation and Federal tax credit phaseout on EVs. I don't claim to remember all his details on his supposed long trips, but my last roadtrip was in mid-2017 in which I took my former 06 Prius (which I had for about 13 years). I don't have it any longer and haven't done a single roadtrip since.

I wouldn't be surprised if a Leaf Plus or Bolt (as I hinted used Bolts are cheap) w/DC FC inlet could be MORE than adequate for his most of his needs and he could just rent a car a few times where it doesn't. That's my plan. If Bolt's not practical, I rent a car or fly.
See above. I haven't flown anywhere in 19 years. Environmental concerns, you know.

cwerdna wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 2:05 am
Bolt when I got mine w/full tax credit was heavily discounted and was effectively well over $10K (IIRC $12K to $14K) less than the cheapest 3 at the time (3 MR) w/what tax credit Tesla had. There were many reasons why I didn't want a 3. And, other than price to some degree, almost none of my issues have been addressed. That $ difference also rents a lot of cars and/or buys a lot of plane tickets.
Uh huh, and keeping my current, paid for and fully depreciated yet reliable ICE that will take me anywhere I want to drive conveniently and flexibly, meets all my major and almost all my minor requirements, saves me tens of thousands of $ which I can save to use once a ZEV arrives that can replace it. In the meantime, I continue to use it only for trips, which are more frequent and to more remote places than the ones you apparently visit. And both of us have found solutions that suit us for now.

As I've written elsewhere, the Niro comes closest to meeting my BEV requirements at the moment re size, body type, price (if I could find one without the $5k ADM that the dealer wanted when I test drove one), spare tire provision etc. but lacks range, charging speed, AWD, and even more critical, a CAPACITY warranty! Not that I'd buy one, but I considered leasing (and putting up with the lack of AWD for a few years) even though that's stupid from a financial perspective. But after adding up all the negatives and considering the still inadequate state of the charging infrastructure along my most common routes, I couldn't justify it.

A LEAF's out due to lack of ATM and my driving involving lots of mountain roads and deserts, and their capacity warranty based in undefined bars whose value can be changed at any time (plus Nissan's past behavior re batteries); the Bolt and Kona are too short to sleep in, something I often do at trailheads on X-C ski trips and sometimes other places (saved me several K$ of motel fees while scuba diving in Monterey over the years); Teslas are too expensive and have features that are anathema to me, with poor prospects for long-term reliability, and so on.

HEVs don't provide enough of a benefit, FCEVs are too expensive and currently lack infrastructure where I need it, and whether or not fuel will be affordable after the 3 years is over remains unknown.

Which leaves PHEVs, and I had considerable interest in the RAV4 Prime as it checked most of my major requirements or came close, but as noted in that topic limited availability is causing dealers to add ADMs of up to $10k to the MSRP, raising the price well above what I'm willing to pay. Besides, I'll be damned if I give a dealer that plays such games my business.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

Oilpan4
Posts: 1494
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:51 pm
Delivery Date: 10 May 2018
Leaf Number: 004270

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Sat Jul 11, 2020 4:38 pm

People say the leaf doesn't have enough range but for the average driver its enough.
If they say it's not enough then they just don't want an electric.
I should know I was one of them.
trumpvirus
Is going to get you.

WetEV
Posts: 3809
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:09 pm

GRA wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:04 pm
WetEV wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:45 am
Look at the transition between oil and coal. Or any other past transition. Hydrogen cheaper than electric power will impact all of the economy before it gets to cars. This can not happen faster than several decades. Hydrogen has been promising for decades, and has yet to deliver.
And according to those same governments, is now ready to start delivering. Of course, it will take decades just like any energy transition.
So where can I buy hydrogen for cheaper than gasoline, unsubsidized and untaxed?

Anyplace?

The cost problem isn't solved.

There isn't a solution ready to start delivering. I can't go buy hydrogen at a price cheaper than gasoline, much less cheaper than electric power. I can't buy equipment that will make hydrogen for me cheaper than electric power. Doesn't exist. If someone invented it next week, it would be decades before was large enough to matter.
GRA wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:04 pm
WetEV wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:45 am
Curbside L1 or L2. Inductive. Solvable problem. BEVs from 50% to 100% will be much slower than the doublings before then.
You want to talk about long transition times, consider how long it will take to provide curbside charging at every single parking space, when concrete sidewalks typically last at least 50 years. Are you going to rip them all up early and replace them? How do you plan to pay for that? The Just announced EU plan, which I posted a link to above for its H2 aspects, also talks about building 1 million charging stations, apparently L1/L2 curbside ones, IIRR by 2030. But seeing as how there's something like 300 million people in the EU, even if they had half the car ownership rate of the U.S., one million chargers is just a drop in the bucket. And apparently the governments would have to pay for them, because I guess it's way too expensive to be profitable.
Like I said, a solvable problem. Unlike getting hydrogen cheaper than electric power.

Time and cost will vary widely, of course. The first 25% is easy and cheap. How much does a quality 120V outlet cost? 240V outlet is more expensive, but not horribly so. Would the government need to pay for that? Let's get to 25% first, and then the next 25%, then the next 25% and so on. L1 can be very cheap, L2 not much more, some harder places might need inductive. The last 1% might be real hard. Not a problem to solve today.
GRA wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:04 pm
WetEV wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:45 am
Prius is cheap to fuel. Cheap and slow is acceptable to some. Hydrogen isn't cheap, so slow and expensive isn't forgivable.
Once again, you assume that the current situation will last forever. As has been pointed out to you again and again, it's recognized by all that the price of RE H2 needs to come down, and everyone's working to bring that about. If they succeed, H2 will be practical, and if they fail it won't.
Notice, there is a way that hydrogen could go forward. Slow and cheap is acceptable, so is fast and expensive. Audi/Porsche was trying for that, and gave up. Do they know something we don't?

GRA wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:04 pm
WetEV wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:45 am

Hydrogen sells.. I mean leases.. only because of subsidized cars and subsidized fuel.

Electric cars are cheaper to operate than gas cars, and have other advantages. While subsidies help, subsidies are not the only reason why BEVs sell.

I'd like to see fuel cells developed for aviation, and cars are an ideal test bed. But without massive subsidies, isn't going to happen unless hydrogen can develop a niche. Range isn't compelling for an ICE driver, especially with the very limited numbers of hydrogen stations.

Where is hydrogen fuel cells niche in automotive? I don't see one.
I've laid it out at length. May happen, may not,
Depends on cheap hydrogen, which isn't happening anytime soon. There isn't a current niche for hydrogen without subsidies, unlike BEVs.
GRA wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:04 pm
but your contention that range isn't compelling for an ICE driver flies in the face of every survey of why people are reluctant to buy BEVs, as well as vehicle specs. Both the RAV4 Prime and Escape PHEV have ranges exceeding 500 miles, the Prime almost 600, despite the fact that gas stations are ubiquitous. Why waste the money and volume on such big tanks if customers didn't find range 'compelling'?
Because keeping the same tank is cheap. The range of ICEs has gone up as the gas mileage has gone up. I can remember when I owned a car that had 13 gallon tank, and got 18 miles to the gallon. 235 mile range. Then gas mileage improved, and cars kept using the same tanks. Why? Cheaper to leave the tank alone. Prius has a 13 gallon tank, and got 50 miles to the gallon. 650 mile range. Basically the same sized tank.

Oh yes, some people wanted more range, and extra tanks can be installed on both (some) cars and (most) trucks. Someone I know brags about transcontinental range for his pickup. Maybe, but not the way he drives. Bats from hell watch in their rear view mirrors for him.
GRA wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:04 pm
WetEV wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:45 am
My range needs are below average. Long long before the car needs a charge, I'm going to hear "Can we please find someplace to stop?" Bio-range is much shorter than car's range. At some range, the same will be true for almost everyone. Other than the iron-butt Cannonball Run types.
See above. Of course, range isn't just valuable for driving x number of hours/miles non-stop; it also means you can do a weekend round trip without needing to fuel enroute. If I drive to Yosemite or Tahoe and back in my Forester, I don't need to stop for gas. I usually do anyway because I'm thrifty: gas is 20-30 cents cheaper/gal. in the central valley and it's just an extra 5-10 minutes, but it's entirely optional - if I'm tired or just want to get home soonest, I don't bother. Range allows flexibility and spontaneity for those who need or value those things. Which is exactly why ICEs beat out BEVs a century ago - people wanted to be able to tour, and do so without being forced to adhere to a rigid plan. ICEs permitted this, BEVs and their (then and current) infrastructure didn't/don't. They're improving, but still have a ways to go.
More range has a declining value. Sure, 100 to 200 miles is a big added value. How about 200 to 400? If given a choice between 400 miles of range and 800 miles of range, how much extra would you be willing to pay? How about 1600 miles of range? How much cash would you spend to get that? How about 2800 miles? How about 2800 miles at 110 mph?
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red
2019 eTron Blue

Oils4AsphaultOnly
Posts: 747
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:09 pm
Delivery Date: 20 Nov 2016
Leaf Number: 313890
Location: Arcadia, CA

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:20 pm

GRA wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 2:52 pm
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 1:54 am
GRA wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 1:14 am



I'd written a reply to this and thought I'd posted it, but it seems to have disappeared. In it I pointed out your own shortcomings re environmental purity, among them by living where you have to commute by car (one of you needs to change jobs, no matter how inconvenient and disruptive it might be; the environment demands it). I'm guessing you also live in a detached, single-family home, the most energy and resource intensive firm of housing there is.And then there's your biggest environmental purity failure, with the longest lasting environmental impact of all: having kids. You're in no position to criticize anyone else re their environmental decisions.


BTW, among the 'pre-conceived notions' that you seem to criticize me for is my unwillingness to depend on single QCs for roadtrips owing to a lack of redundancy. Tell me, is DaveinOlyWa, now driving I believe his 5th LEAF, also suffering from 'pre-conceived notions' when he recently wrote in the 'Electrify America Network's that:.

Or you could check out Doug wants a Leafs lists about the EA Ogallala CHAdeMO appearing and disappearing from operational status, as he's deoendent on it to visit family. As you may or may not know, EA sites have just one CHAdeMO. Was Doug (3rd LEAF) Falso suffering from Preconceived notion?
I minimize my environmental impact where I can.

As do I, by choosing to live in a small, well-insulated apartment which I heat partly by passive solar and keep colder than many would find comfortable, in a location that allows me to commute and do virtually all my errands by some combination of foot, bike and electrified mass transit, allowing me to leave my car in my driveway for weeks at a time.

But I don't kid myself that I couldn't do even more, if minimizing my environmental footprint were my sole consideration. It's not, and obviously it isn't for you either, as you're a self-admitted car-commuting breeder, so where do you get the chutzpah to lecture anyone else about their supposed 'hypocrisy'? Unlike you I freely acknowledge that I could do more, IF I were willing to only consider environmental concerns and ignore all others. I'm not and neither are you; the difference is I admit it, as a self-proclaimed 80%er. You don't.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 1:54 am
And you're the one bringing up "environmental purity". It's just a deflection tactic you're using to hide your hypocrisy.

See above, and take a good look in the mirror.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 1:54 am
The other leaf owners are able to successfully deal with an occasional downed qc station just fine.
If your definition of 'dealing with it just fine' is by having to postpone or abandon a trip, then I guess they do. That's not my definition, nor most people's.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 1:54 am
They don't let it affect the remaining 95% of the time the leaf benefits them.
Just as I don't let it affect the remaining 95% of the time my feet, bike and use of electrified mass transit benefits me, instead of using a much less energy-efficient and much more resource-intensive BEV. They've made choices based on what compromises they're willing to make in their lifestyle, just as I have, or you. I don't accuse them of hypocrisy, because their circumstances aren't mine, and they aren't me. So why do you feel entitled to criticize my choices, given your own 'hypocrisy'?

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 1:54 am
Just like how you're able to deal with an occasional flat tire or car that won't start and needs a jump, a few hiccups along the way isn't the end of the world. Stop making excuses for being an EV hater. Saying that you support electric vehicles, while simultaneously spreading FUD about BEV's and espousing the promises of H2 as being "comparable" is dishonest.

There you go again, claiming I'm an EV hater with absolutely no proof. I'm a supporter of all EVs, however the electricity is supplied, as a way to get off fossil fuels. I happily recommend HEVs, PHEVs, BEVs, and/or FCEVs to anyone who asks, the choice being based on which suits their situation best. I also give them the pros and cons of each, because unlike you I'm not wedded to a particular tech, but recognize that each has strengths and weaknesses. And I recognize that the final decision is theirs even if I think it's sub-optimal and would make a different one. I'm happy to see fossil fuel use reduced however little or much every person is willing to do so, because absent my being appointed dictator I have no power to impose my values on anyone else.

And now, I'm off to climb Mt. Shasta, burning 25 or so gallons of gas driving there and back, plus a few ounces of propane/butane mix running my stove, and the embodied fossil fuel energy in the food I'll be eating, not forgetting the extra food energy I'll be using by packing out my feces so as to avoid contaminating the water supply, inside a paper bag filled with kitty litter which in turn is carried inside a hopefully leakproof plastic bag. So I will be out of touch for several days.
How could you possibly think that you would be an effective advocate of EV's when you harbor such deep seated biases against BEV's?! I claim you're an EV hater based on the FUD that you repeat constantly on this site (just review your replies to the others for countless examples of it). You think you're being objective, but you're actually spreading your bias to your friends and family. Of course they would be less enthusiastic about BEV's!

The hypocrisy comes from how many of your miles driven last year could NOT have been done in any BEV (not every BEV). The hypocrisy comes from you saying that it's not good enough yet because a charger _MIGHT_ not be working - that QC station in Ely isn't your only source of electricity if it happens to be out of service for some reason. I've looked in the mirror, and I'm not happy with all my choices either. I've made some poor decisions (like where to work), but now I have to live with it and do what I can. I live in a condo/townhouse by the way and not some big ol' ranch house. You'll be surprised at where electricity can be run to.

FYI. Mt Shasta is less than 60 miles from the redding supercharger (I used it when returning from my Lassen trip). There's also a CCS/Chademo in Dunsmuir if you wanted to do it in a Bolt. I hope you rent one instead of burn your half-barrel of crude oil for the weekend.
:: Model 3 LR :: acquired 9 May '18
:: Leaf S30 :: build date: Sep '16 :: purchased: Nov '16
100% Zero transportation emissions (except when I walk) and loving it!

Oilpan4
Posts: 1494
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:51 pm
Delivery Date: 10 May 2018
Leaf Number: 004270

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Sun Jul 12, 2020 8:45 pm

It's pretty safe to say hydrogen will never be cheaper than any of its feed stocks.
So the only way hydrogen will be cheaper than natural gas, oil, coal is for electricity to just about be free.
trumpvirus
Is going to get you.

GRA
Posts: 12073
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Sat Jul 18, 2020 3:41 pm

I spent 45 minutes to an hour writing a reply a couple nights ago, but MNL ate it and I couldn't face re-doing it for a couple of days. Here's #2.
WetEV wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:09 pm
GRA wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:04 pm
WetEV wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:45 am
Look at the transition between oil and coal. Or any other past transition. Hydrogen cheaper than electric power will impact all of the economy before it gets to cars. This can not happen faster than several decades. Hydrogen has been promising for decades, and has yet to deliver.
And according to those same governments, is now ready to start delivering. Of course, it will take decades just like any energy transition.
So where can I buy hydrogen for cheaper than gasoline, unsubsidized and untaxed?

Anyplace?

The cost problem isn't solved.

No one has claimed that it is, only that it's on a path to being solved in the next 5-10 years, and that it's now time to start moving from the Dem/Val phase into production to start getting costs down, but subsidies and mandates will be required for a while yet. IOW, the same process that RE and BEVs have followed; Wind/PV have now reached cost-competitiveness and can stand on their own, BEVs and H2/FCEVs haven't, with BEVs closer to doing so at the lower end of capability.

WetEV wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:09 pm
There isn't a solution ready to start delivering. I can't go buy hydrogen at a price cheaper than gasoline, much less cheaper than electric power. I can't buy equipment that will make hydrogen for me cheaper than electric power. Doesn't exist. If someone invented it next week, it would be decades before was large enough to matter.

See above.


WetEV wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:09 pm
GRA wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:04 pm
WetEV wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:45 am
Curbside L1 or L2. Inductive. Solvable problem. BEVs from 50% to 100% will be much slower than the doublings before then.
You want to talk about long transition times, consider how long it will take to provide curbside charging at every single parking space, when concrete sidewalks typically last at least 50 years Are you going to rip them all up early and replace them? How do you plan to pay for that? The Just announced EU plan, which I posted a link to above for its H2 aspects, also talks about building 1 million charging stations, apparently L1/L2 curbside ones, IIRR by 2030. But seeing as how there's something like 300 million people in the EU, even if they had half the car ownership rate of the U.S., one million chargers is just a drop in the bucket. And apparently the governments would have to pay for them, because I guess it's way too expensive to be profitable.
Like I said, a solvable problem. Unlike getting hydrogen cheaper than electric power.

Again, H2 doesn't need to be cheaper than electric power, it only needs to be competitive with gas, for cases where batteries lack the operational capability required.

WetEV wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:09 pm
Time and cost will vary widely, of course. The first 25% is easy and cheap. How much does a quality 120V outlet cost? 240V outlet is more expensive, but not horribly so. Would the government need to pay for that? Let's get to 25% first, and then the next 25%, then the next 25% and so on. L1 can be very cheap, L2 not much more, some harder places might need inductive. The last 1% might be real hard. Not a problem to solve today.

If done ahead of the normal replacement schedule, it's not cheap. Cities are undergrounding their utilities wherever possible, for both safety and esthetics, so you've not only got to buy all that extra wire, you've got to bury it too, which means replacing the concrete sidewalk/gutter. The cost of the L1/L2 EVSEs is probably the minor part of the total. So, if a sidewalk lasts 34.3 years on average in the U.S. (note, found that online; forget the source I read that said 50. Climate and other factors vary), then you're talking a maximum of 3%/yr. replacement, unless you're willing to replace them early.

Who's going to have the money for that, given all the extra money they'll be spending for wire, EVSEs etc.? We're not talking about the occasional spot tapping off a streetlamp, we're talking about providing charging at every single parking space on each block.

By comparison, asphalt is cheaper and has a shorter lifespan, so putting EVSEs in a parking lot is cheaper. For that matter, no one expects a parking lot to be very esthetic, so you can pole or even surface mount the wires. Parking garages also allow surface mounting.

WetEV wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:09 pm
GRA wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:04 pm
WetEV wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:45 am
Prius is cheap to fuel. Cheap and slow is acceptable to some. Hydrogen isn't cheap, so slow and expensive isn't forgivable.
Once again, you assume that the current situation will last forever. As has been pointed out to you again and again, it's recognized by all that the price of RE H2 needs to come down, and everyone's working to bring that about. If they succeed, H2 will be practical, and if they fail it won't.
Notice, there is a way that hydrogen could go forward. Slow and cheap is acceptable, so is fast and expensive. Audi/Porsche was trying for that, and gave up. Do they know something we don't?

Equally, you could ask if BMW, Toyota, Hyundai/Kia, Ford/Honda, Daimler etc., who are all continuing FCEV development know something we don't? All of them also have BEV programs, so it's not as if they're locked in to one option.

That to me is the main point. Just as I think it's important to have multiple Covid-19 vaccines under development simultaneously to give us a high probability that we get at least one that works ASAP despite the inevitable waste of money, we need to pursue multiple RE/AFV techs likewise to give us the best chance to have at least one 'vaccine' for AGCC, although it will obviously take more than one in this case as we're talking about a bunch of related 'diseases' rather than a single virus.

WetEV wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:09 pm
GRA wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:04 pm
WetEV wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:45 am

Hydrogen sells.. I mean leases.. only because of subsidized cars and subsidized fuel.

Electric cars are cheaper to operate than gas cars, and have other advantages. While subsidies help, subsidies are not the only reason why BEVs sell.

Then there's no longer a justification for subsidies and mandates for them, and I expect that you'll immediately start lobbying politicians to end them, not to mention returning any tax credit/rebate you got when buying your e-Tron.

WetEV wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:09 pm
I'd like to see fuel cells developed for aviation, and cars are an ideal test bed. But without massive subsidies, isn't going to happen unless hydrogen can develop a niche. Range isn't compelling for an ICE driver, especially with the very limited numbers of hydrogen stations.

Where is hydrogen fuel cells niche in automotive? I don't see one.
I've laid it out at length. May happen, may not,
Depends on cheap hydrogen, which isn't happening anytime soon. There isn't a current niche for hydrogen without subsidies, unlike BEVs.

See above, as we differ on the def. of 'soon'. BTW, H2 FCEVs already do have a niche at current prices, forklifts/MHE in high duty cycle jobs, especially in cold climates. This does require some kind of air quality reg., but BEVs can't meet the requirement. The ZEV niche for FCEVs including cars will grow for any task which requires some combination of long range/high duty cycle/cold weather/rapid refueling, as current BEVs lack these capabilities. The size of each tech's niche will be determined by how much each improves, and how rapidly.

WetEV wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:09 pm
GRA wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:04 pm
but your contention that range isn't compelling for an ICE driver flies in the face of every survey of why people are reluctant to buy BEVs, as well as vehicle specs. Both the RAV4 Prime and Escape PHEV have ranges exceeding 500 miles, the Prime almost 600, despite the fact that gas stations are ubiquitous. Why waste the money and volume on such big tanks if customers didn't find range 'compelling'?
Because keeping the same tank is cheap. The range of ICEs has gone up as the gas mileage has gone up. I can remember when I owned a car that had 13 gallon tank, and got 18 miles to the gallon. 235 mile range. Then gas mileage improved, and cars kept using the same tanks. Why? Cheaper to leave the tank alone. Prius has a 13 gallon tank, and got 50 miles to the gallon. 650 mile range. Basically the same sized tank.

Oh please, this is nonsense. Sure, if a company can re-use the same tank in an HEV as compared to the ICE they will, but every 6-8 years they intro the next gen of a given model, and since they need to be crash-tested anew, they start with a clean slate and can put any size tank in they choose.

Taking various gens. of RAV4 ICEs as an example, in 2000 it was rated at 29 mpg. Hwy, with a 15.3 mpg. tank giving a max. range of 444 miles.

In 2010 it was rated 28 mpg HWY/15.9 gal. tank = 445 miles . Note, the EPA changed the test cycle in 2007?, which in the case of my Forester dropped the rated HWY mpg. 2 mpg. from 27 to 25, with no change to the car. I get 28-30 real world. Assuming the same 2 mpg. drop for the RAV4, it would have been rated 30 mpg. HWY under the old method, so 30 mpg. HWY/15.9 gal. tank = 477 miles max range.

2020, 35 (37 as above) mpg. HWY/14.5 gal. tank = 537 miles max. range.

Apparently, Toyota believes range sells, as does everyone else. Tesla, for instance, who discontinued the Mod. S40 while boosting the 60 to 70 and 75 kWh and the 85 to 90 and 100 with more apparently on the way. Oh, and then there's this:
On Sunday, CEO Elon Musk also said the company was cancelling plans to produce a less-expensive standard-range version of the crossover [Model Y] SUV, saying that its expected range of less than 250 miles would be “unacceptably low.


WetEV wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:09 pm
Oh yes, some people wanted more range, and extra tanks can be installed on bo (some) cars and (most) trucks. Someone I know brags about transcontinental range for his pickup. Maybe, but not the way he drives. Bats from hell watch in their rear view mirrors for him.
GRA wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:04 pm
WetEV wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:45 am
My range needs are below average. Long long before the car needs a charge, I'm going to hear "Can we please find someplace to stop?" Bio-range is much shorter than car's range. At some range, the same will be true for almost everyone. Other than the iron-butt Cannonball Run types.
See above. Of course, range isn't just valuable for driving x number of hours/miles non-stop; it also means you can do a weekend round trip without needing to fuel enroute. If I drive to Yosemite or Tahoe and back in my Forester, I don't need to stop for gas. I usually do anyway because I'm thrifty: gas is 20-30 cents cheaper/gal. in the central valley and it's just an extra 5-10 minutes, but it's entirely optional - if I'm tired or just want to get home soonest, I don't bother. Range allows flexibility and spontaneity for those who need or value those things. Which is exactly why ICEs beat out BEVs a century ago - people wanted to be able to tour, and do so without being forced to adhere to a rigid plan. ICEs permitted this, BEVs and their (then and current) infrastructure didn't/don't. They're improving, but still have a ways to go.
More range has a declining value. Sure, 100 to 200 miles is a big added value. How about 200 to 400? If given a choice between 400 miles of range and 800 miles of range, how much extra would you be willing to pay? How about 1600 miles of range? How much cash would you spend to get that? How about 2800 miles? How about 2800 miles at 110 mph?

Of course it has a declining value. How much it's worth depends on need/desire. The step from 200-400 miles represents far more than a doubling of utility to me (and most car buyers). I only need to take a break every 4-6 hours.

So, on my recent Shasta trip I drove 285 miles there in 3:50 non-stop, cruising at 75-80 mph much of the way while using the A/C (highest temp 105). After having dinner and picking up a few items I drove 12 miles up to the trailhead, for a net elevation gain from home of about 6,800'. After the climb, upon returning to the car I drove another 101 miles (398 total, plus at least 30 miles reserve) to Red Bluff (cheap gas) where I refueled, then drove home non-stop from there.

Up to about 700 miles would allow me to do any weekend RT unrefueled, and I don't need anything beyond that. But as I've said, 4 hours at 80 plus 1/2 hour reserve at 70 or more, all in moderate headwinds or climb while using HVAC, for the life of the car, would constitute an adequate, full replacement for me for an ICE, assuming an adequate refueling/recharging network. Other people have different requirements.
Last edited by GRA on Sat Jul 18, 2020 9:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA
Posts: 12073
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Sat Jul 18, 2020 7:21 pm

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 1:54 am
GRA wrote: Just like how you're able to deal with Stop making excuses for being an EV hater. Saying that you support electric vehicles, while simultaneously spreading FUD about BEV's and espousing the promises of H2 as being "comparable" is dishonest.

There you go again, claiming I'm an EV hater with absolutely no proof. I'm a supporter of all EVs, however the electricity is supplied, as a way to get off fossil fuels. I happily recommend HEVs, PHEVs, BEVs, and/or FCEVs to anyone who asks, the choice being based on which suits their situation best. I also give them the pros and cons of each, because unlike you I'm not wedded to a particular tech, but recognize that each has strengths and weaknesses. And I recognize that the final decision is theirs even if I think it's sub-optimal and would make a different one. I'm happy to see fossil fuel use reduced however little or much every person is willing to do so, because absent my being appointed dictator I have no power to impose my values on anyone else.

And now, I'm off to climb Mt. Shasta, burning 25 or so gallons of gas driving there and back, plus a few ounces of propane/butane mix running my stove, and the embodied fossil fuel energy in the food I'll be eating, not forgetting the extra food energy I'll be using by packing out my feces so as to avoid contaminating the water supply, inside a paper bag filled with kitty litter which in turn is carried inside a hopefully leakproof plastic bag. So I will be out of touch for several days.
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:20 pm
How could you possibly think that you would be an effective advocate of EV's when you harbor such deep seated biases against BEV's?!

Because I don't have such bias. The bias is in your mind.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:20 pm
I claim you're an EV hater based on the FUD that you repeat constantly on this site (just review your replies to the others for countless examples of it).

Since you claim it's so plentiful, feel free to provide an example. Offhand, I don't believe I've recommended for or against anyone getting a particular car here for a few years now, because I got bored with playing 20 questions and repeating the same info over and over.

OTOH, I freely admit that when I was doing that, if the case was marginal I'd recommend against a BEV, because I'd rather see satisfied than unsatisfied customers. In such cases there was often another option which I'd recommend. There's a phrase which I believe someone here invented some years back, but I wish I had: PHEVs are the gateway drug to BEVs. For someone who wants to reduce their fossil fuel use but is worried by range anxiety etc., a PHEV can be a good option for daily commuters as long as they normally turn cars over frequently, say once every car gen. or better. It allows them to get their toes wet while reducing their emissions, then hopefully move to a full ZEV when the next gen arrives, if that meets their needs.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:20 pm
You think you're being objective, but you're actually spreading your bias to your friends and family. Of course they would be less enthusiastic about BEV's!

I seem to be far more objective about tech than you, because I don't get all wrapped up in a particular one; to me, each is just a tool in the toolkit. We all have personal biases, but I'm pretty clear what mine are. One of the things that was critical in designing RE systems is that there was no such thing as a universal solution: each system was site dependent, and going in with a bias towards say PV when what was called for was wind, microhydro or a hybrid system resulted in sub-optimal, expensive systems that were likely to lead to unsatisfied and unhappy customers. So, while my personal preference was for PV AOTBE, I never let that blind me that one of the others might be more suitable in that particular situation. And I made sure to give the customer information and options, so they could choose whichever was best-suited to them, not me. I do the same here, keeping my fingers off the scale.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:20 pm
The hypocrisy comes from how many of your miles driven last year could NOT have been done in any BEV (not every BEV).

As you have little or no idea where I drove what miles, you're assuming an awful lot. BTW, the issue isn't whether I could drive somewhere in some BEV, it's whether I could drive where I want, when I want, reasonably conveniently in a BEV that meets my needs and I would consider buying.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:20 pm
The hypocrisy comes from you saying that it's not good enough yet because a charger _MIGHT_ not be working - that QC station in Ely isn't your only source of electricity if it happens to be out of service for some reason.
Feel free to point them out, because I don't see them on Plugshare. Also point out options for Tonopah and Rush Creek Lodge - that's three possible single point failures in a row, each of which is beyond range of the site preceding or follow the nearest one if that's not available.

Oh, since I also make sure I have enough gas in the car when driving in remote rural areas that I can reach at least the next nearest town with a gas station if the nearest one happens to be unavailable for any reason, and will recommend to anyone who asks me that they do the same, does that also make me an ICE hater/hypocrite/spreader of FUD as far as fossil-fueled ICEs are concerned?

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:20 pm
I've looked in the mirror, and I'm not happy with all my choices either. I've made some poor decisions (like where to work), but now I have to live with it and do what I can. I live in a condo/townhouse by the way and not some big ol' ranch house. You'll be surprised at where electricity can be run to.

FYI. Mt Shasta is less than 60 miles from the redding supercharger (I used it when returning from my Lassen trip). There's also a CCS/Chademo in Dunsmuir if you wanted to do it in a Bolt. I hope you rent one instead of burn your half-barrel of crude oil for the weekend.

If I wanted to rent a Tesla I could do even better, as there's a 16-stall SC in Mt. Shasta City. There were four Teslas there when I arrived for dinner next door, and five when I left. I've also seen several parked at the trailhead, this year and last, because access is easy.

In that same parking lot is a single Chargepoint 48 kWh CCS/CHAdeMO. Last year getting to Shasta on I-5 was a lot harder in a non-Tesla, because the EA QCs in both Willows and Anderson were still under construction. You can find my report on their condition at that time in the EA topic, as I stopped at both to inspect them then. I forget whether or not the EA in Dunnigan had opened yet, but it provides another option.

There are also far more Chargepoint QCs along I-5 this year than last, and although they're almost all singles the density is high enough that one being down is unlikely to strand you completely. You may have a long wait for it to be available, though, if there are people ahead of you.

It's true now that I could run up I-5 reasonably easily in a Tesla, and somewhat less easily in a non-Tesla, which is what I'm interested in. But doing so wouldn't give me much valuable data, as I'm typically going east not north, with most of the driving on state/U.S. highways in remote areas with lots of elevation gain loss, not cruising on flat interstates.

Also, as I did last year and planned to do this until bad weather on Shasta caused me to postpone the trip twice, I was going to loop through Lassen, climb it to acclimate and then take 89 to Shasta from there, and that's a lot more difficult to do, being over 210 miles from the Willows QC, with 8,400' of climb to Lassen, well beyond a Bolt or similar car's capability even with zero reserve. I'd have to make an extra stop north of Willows and charge to 100% or thereabouts, adding even more time to the trip.

Then there's the issue of renting. I joined Turo last year in hopes of renting a Bolt or similar (no Niro BEVs on Turo yet) to go up to Yosemite once the necessary stations were built (I've been monitoring them as well), but quickly found that most BEVs on Turo were in the South Bay or on the peninsula, with limited or no public transit access from the East Bay where I am. Still, I persevered, and found one I could get to.

Unfortunately, some Turo owners don't realize that they need to list whether or not their cars have QC, and Turo doesn't give you contact info until after you've reserved. So I found that the Bolt I'd reserved lacked CCS. No others were available that I could get to that weekend.

I was planning to try again later, but 120 closed for the season before I could, so I had to wait until this year. Which was okay, because I thought I might be able to rent a 2020 Bolt, and the extra range would be useful given that it lacks a heat pump, unlike a Niro. Worst case conditions would be a fall trip, when the lows at Tuolumne Mdws. are sub-freezing, and it can be in the teens on the east side. I've climbed Mt. Ritter many times on Columbus Day weekend, so fall would give me the most useful data.

So, spring arrived just as we got stay at home, and while I lack the underlying conditions that really boost the risk, I am in an age group that has some higher risk from Covid-19.

Do I really want to risk my health by going through all the hassle of renting and picking up some car on Turo, when I have no idea who's been in it or how well it's been cleaned (or clean it myself, when I'm paying $60-$70 day to rent it?), just to save 25 gallons of gas?

Or, just take the ICE sitting in my driveway, which will get me quickly and conveniently where I want to go and only cost me gas money, while I wait for the situation for renting a BEV to improve? l chose to wait. Given all the above, what would your choice be? And unlike me, you've got more than your own health to think about.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

LeftieBiker
Moderator
Posts: 15047
Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 3:17 am
Delivery Date: 30 Apr 2018
Location: Upstate New York, US

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Sat Jul 18, 2020 9:52 pm

I stopped reading after 500 words.
There's a phrase which I believe someone here invented some years back, but I wish I had: PHEVs are the gateway drug to BEVs.
The original version of that is "Hybrids are the gateway drug to EVs." More of us came to the Leaf from a regular Prius than from any other single vehicle, as best I can tell. My 2013 Leaf encouraged me to promote the Prius PHEV to my housemate when the lease ended on her 2010 Prius II - a choice I now regret, I'm afraid. Unless you really need a 600 mile range, a PHEV is just a way of dragging around a complex, troublesome ICE.
Scarlet Ember 2018 Leaf SL W/ Pro Pilot
2009 Vectrix VX-1 W/18 Leaf modules, & 3 EZIP E-bicycles.
BAFX OBDII Dongle
PLEASE don't PM me with Leaf questions. Just post in the topic that seems most appropriate.

Return to “Business / Economy and Politics”