Toyota executive calls out Musk as battle for green car future heats up. Reuters
At the Los Angeles auto show in November, Browning, who was then chief of Volkswagen's U.S. operations, ruffled feathers by saying electric was a more viable technology because it was a lot easier for consumers to find electric sockets than hydrogen stations.
Toyota's Carter addressed the infrastructure issue on Tuesday, arguing that the number of hydrogen fuelling stations would grow in time, helped by private-public partnerships such as the one established in the state of California.
The way I see it, there are three main reasons various interests are against the Hydrogen car.
1. It would hurt existing financial plans.
2. It would blunt their arguments that the 'American way of life' is unsustainable.
3. It has a chance at working.
Full disclosure: I've long believed that Hydrogen fuel-cell technology is the wave of the future. I see great benefits in untethering our transportation fleet from fossil fuels. The arguments I've received against all have one fatal flaw. They all assume that the current levels of technology are going to be static for the next 10-20 years.
If you've followed technology over any period of time you realize the amazing lack of understanding this line of reasoning reveals. Yes, it's currently inefficient to create hydrogen fuel cells. But that doesn't mean that it will be ten years from now. Yes, the infrastructure for fueling stations is sub-standard, but it will improve in time as well, provided the cars that are made are good cars.
Arguing the future based on today's technology is not an instrument of debate, but an instrument designed to stifle debate. The reason Musk, Nissan and others are arguing against H fuel cell technology is because they're betting their financial futures against it. That doesn't mean that they couldn't adapt should it succeed (well, Elon Musk couldn't but that's another story). The ecomental argument is being made for different reasons, namely, the reasons that I've listed above.
The last thing the ecomentalists want to see is the success of hydrogen-cell cars with fuel ranges in line with existing technology. Being able to hop into your car, drive for 300 miles and stop by a gas station to fill up the cell is a horrible idea to them. Unfortunately, they can't SAY that out loud because it would lay bare the dishonesty behind their 'green planet' argument. Nothing has the potential to be greener than the hydrogen fuel-cell car. Even electric plug-ins and hybrids rely on a dirty power source. To counter that the ecos point out that current technology for hydrogen harvesting is dirty. Yes, it is, but so is current technology for electrical generation. Funny how that's not mentioned. It's also important to remember that gasoline has moved from the leaded mess that was a pollution nightmare, to today's blends that have so many detergents they create a gasoline that's pink, like babies' skin.
The big problem is that the H fuel-cell keeps the suburbs practical and affordable, and that just can't stand. In a world where one's choice of dwelling has become a moral decision allowing the unwashed, uncultured Suburbanites keep their Starbucks lattes and single-family homes is unthinkable. Letting them keep them with non-polluting technology is a fate worse than death. Because if you're not morally superior in your sardine-urbanist beliefs then what are you? In many cases for those of the lecturing type, their entire personal identity is wrapped up in some modern hipster fog.
I should go on to say that I still see a future for plug-in automobiles, as city cars, where long trips and quick refuelings are not hard and fast requirements. There will even be suburbanites who keep a plug-in electric vehicle for local runs, when they're not riding their bikes or walking to the stores. Yes, Virginia, there are walkable communities outside the city core as well, in many cases they're safer, contain more "boutique" shopping options, and are better laid out than their urban-core counterparts. In Houston especially, I predict that the future of "urban walkability" will be centered in places such as the Woodlands, Cinco Ranch and Sugar Land. Yes, downtown will have the Danger Train and reduced automotive capacity via complete streets, which will lead businesses to move out to where the people are, instead of asking them to bother with coming inside the loop. There's also the reality that the neighborhoods between the Loop and the Sam Houston Toll way will be changing as well, all of this will lead to increased walkability and the sustainability of the region, without having to make-real the unproductive class fantasy of shoe-horning all of Harris, Montgomery and Brazoria Counties into the geographic bull's eye created by 610.
While I don't believe we're in imminent threat of running out of oil soon, I do believe that it will be getting more expensive. Much of this is due to rising International demand and the reality that anti-pollution laws are making it more expensive to process and turn into fuel. Just as hydrogen technology will not remain static neither will extractive technology. Because of this I predict that huge reservoirs of oil, previously unreachable, will be opened to exploration and profitable production. If you think I'm wrong then you haven't been paying attention to fracing at all. To me, a better use of petroleum products is plastics, rather than gasoline, and natural gas for heating, cooking etc. Untethering transportation from this (in some part) would go a long way in reducing demand and keeping prices from spiking at too-high levels.
Of course, no matter how accurate my predictions are there are still going to be those who disagree and continue to make the argument that man is turning Gaia into an EZ-Bake while the American proclivity for mass-produced burgers are turning us all into a Nation of the fat and gormless. Good for them, I hope they're successful, and I hope that none of them burn to ashes in their newly-acquired Teslas.
No, really, I do.
