I think you may be over-optimistic on fuel cell efficiency, and how much it can be improved (wiki):
Again, it all depends what the goal is. Reforming Nat Gas (a Hydro-CARBON) into hydrogen for fuel cells does nothing for CO2 emissions, unless the overall process moves the car with less Nat Gas input overall.
I'd have to look it up, but I think power-plant-to-wheel eff of an EV would be significantly higher than that fuel cell.
First, I'm not seeking to reduce CO2 emissions as a primary goal. I don't believe global warming is a "grave and growing" environmental threat. In the back of my mind, if I can find two equal alternative ways to power a car and one of them reduces CO2 - then the carbon reduction alternative wins. But, nobody is dying from global warming and I believe we have time to find a find a solution to that issue (if it is indeed a problem) on a much larger scale than focusing on cars
Second, on the issue of fuel efficiency, that is a hard one for anybody to get their arms around. For example, see if you can follow raw petroleum, still in the ground - and track the gross energy required to transport, and convert that oil into gasoline and power an typically inefficient automobile internal combustion engine down the road. Even if you come up with a number, then factor in things like oil spill clean-ups, etc. I bet the total efficiency is less than 5%.
Plus, I am not advocating fuel cells exclusively. Lots of new technology is hanging in the wings, including raw hydrogen. Combine that with off-peak electrical generation rates from things like solar or wind, plus a way to produce hydrogen at the service station, and hydrogen could be the best choice.
I just want the free market making the choices, not Washington DC with subsidies.
I still say that is too indirect. The mpg of a fleet just isn't that closely related to how much oil we use. Three people sharing a 20 mpg vehicle are doing better than a single person in their 40 mpg vehicle. Nothing about that sticker mpg dictates if I move closer to my job, ride share, combine trips, etc. In fact, it can disincentive it.
Again, $4 gas caused a drop in oil consumption, and the fleet mpg hadn't changed one iota. IMO, fleet mpg is "small" thinking.
Yes, I agree. I grabbed at what amounted a common measuring stick - and you are right. History has shown that is not a good way to measure progress.
My goal primary goal is to wean ourselves of petroleum. Foreign oil has caused nothing but one big problem after the next since the 1970's - that should be obvious. And now, as petroleum gets increasingly hard to find and bring to market, the problems are growing proportionately. For example, I think as human beings we have an obligation to save portions of this planet in a "natural state". Drilling in the Arctic region, with its impact on both nature and the people living there, is environmentally irresponsible. Drilling at 5000 feet is irresponsible. The water pressure at that depth is incredibly high and we are just asking for more problems like the BP Oil spill when we drill at that depth.
We are backing ourselves into a corner with our dependence on oil. 40 years of back-to-back problems haven't moved us away from that corner either.
This problem needs to be handled just like we stopped the use of cancer causing pesticides. If the government doesn't set up a time-tiered program to get our transportation system off of petroleum, we are just going to stay fat, dumb, and increasingly in trouble. I don't know the precise yard stick to measure our progress in weaning ourselves of oil, but surely one exists.
Briefly, urban planners are indeed hold a great share of the blame for our dependency on oil. Big, colored, zoning maps showing residential here and commercial there, etc. has compounded our problem. The local 7-11 probably has saved more gasoline than all our other efforts combined. The reason is they are close to home.
The correct approach would have been to allow some industry and commercial property to mix into residential areas. An office building can fit into a residential area, provided the proper infrastructure is in place (ie, roads, electricity, etc.) Wouldn't it be nice to walk to work and walk to the store?
But urban planners have dictated that everyone needs cars to live. Many cars. This is a big issue with me, since one of my wives was an urban planner and I saw exactly how this worked. Nobody wanted a school "in my back yard", so now, you need a car to take kids to school. This is only one example. It is a complex subject with no easy answer - but needs to be recognized by more people so we don't compound our mistakes in the future.
........cute, though.
