HOW MANY TIMES CAN CALIFORNIA KILL THE ELECTRIC CAR?

The heroic activist-visionaries who championed the 1990s development of practical battery-driven zero-emission vehicles and starred in Who Killed The Electric Car? are once again rallying. A California regulatory board will soon decide whether to incentivize hydrogen fuel cell development or the production of electric vehicles.

If, by now, the evidence that the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle (HFCV) is a dream and an illusion hasn’t already hit home, consider 2 pieces of November 2007 evidence: (1) Ballard Power Systems, one of the biggest hydrogen fuel cell boosters, bailed on the idea after wasting millions chasing it; (2) A Toyota official predicted the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle won’t be ready before 2030.

Automakers promise HFCVs that aren’t soon likely to be, instead of producing electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) that are readily within reach, because they can then keep experimenting with hydrogen in the backyard and keep pushing fossil fuel guzzlers out the front door.

HFCVs actually generate MORE emissions than EVs because it takes more electricity to turn hydrogen into fuel than it does to charge a battery to power a car.

Because of the urgency that climate change awareness brings, there has been a shift in what the public can stand for. Automakers’ empty promises are no longer acceptable. The public must let California regulators know they are done with hydrogen daydreams and want to plug into the future.

Bring back the electric car; The state should reverse its mistake of putting its clean-air hopes in hydrogen instead of battery-powered autos.
Sherry Boschert, November 19, 2007 (LA Times)



WHO
Californians; California Air Resources Board (CARB); Sherry Boschert, author, Plug-In Hybrids; The Cars That Will Recharge America

WHAT
CARB will soon make a regulatory decision that will determine the momentum behind development of EVs and HFCVs. The Board needs to make the vehicles equal in “clean air” value and not give in on its deadline requirements.

WHEN
- CARB will make its decisions in early 2008.
- The CARB 1990 Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) mandate set in motion the forces that generated the 1990s EV successes.
- CARB’s 2001 submission to automakers’ empty promises of an HFCV killed commercial development of the EV.

Is CARB a serial killer?

WHERE
- Automakers’ promises at the November 2007 Los Angeles Auto Show suggest they are still full of hype about the HFCV.
- Stay informed about all things electric car at Marc Geller's Plugs and Cars.

WHY
- Laws often determine the progress of progress in modern transportation. Examples: seatbelts and airbags for safety, catalytic converters to control emissions, congressionally mandated fuel standards to push mileage from 12 mpg to 27 mpg.
- Automaker promises unfulfilled: GM said HFCVs would be competitive in showrooms by 2004; Daimler-Chrysler said it would sell 100,000 HFCVs by 2006.
- Automaker promises soon to be unfulfilled: Presentations at the LA Auto Show are hyping the HFCV while behind the scenes automakers are telling CARB they cannot meet the previously established goal to produce 25,000 by 2012.
- While $1 million experimental fuel cells are failing in 2-4 years, there are 1990s EVs on the road with 100,000+ miles still going strong.

He's driving electric now. How about when he gets his license?

QUOTES
- Boschert, on the upcoming CARB decisions: “Californians are being taken for a ride by state clean-air regulators, who are bringing the rest of the country along. Decisions made by the California Air Resources Board early next year will determine whether we get the option of driving zero-emission, non-polluting cars soon, or whether we'll see smoggy business as usual from the car companies for another decade.”
- Boschert, on the urgency of the matter: “There's no time to waste. Only California can pass clean-air laws that are stricter than federal standards. But many other states adopt California's requirements, so what the board does has national implications for our health, for the environment and for national security. A slower drive away from gasoline is a ride we don't want to take.”