c Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> [www.eventbrite.com]
> on-alternatives-qa-and-reception-tickets-736740830
> 657

IBEW has been lobbying hard for "wire" as one would rightly expect as a dues paying member. And the unions are some of the source of funding for these (tax deductible?educationals/tax exmempt..) "new urbanist" front groups that have sprung up to push "wire" and bad mouth H2... PR firms make good money for incorporating groups like these to influence public policy these days....

What has thus far been a general failure is bus electrification has been battery technology. They work in some situations, but are lacking in cost competitive range, availability, and reliability, with high spare ratio needs for vehicles. And while some of these things have "improved" at the "margins", battery electric buses have proven to be much more expensive in these far more significant "indirect" operational costs.

Wired trolly buses are a 125+ year old technology as are electrified RR's, and do have a proven track record, but also at a historic cost premium, often from operational flexibility issues, equipment availability, and system maintenance costs. And so, trolly buse expansion is naturally being rightly considered for expansion opportunities where there is already a substantial electrified operation, in a very constrained geographic area, and thus some economies of scale and of experience. SF is an unusual case however.

A new generation of transit managers are looking very hard at H2 fuel cell/capacitor assist technologies, as this technology is falling in costs and increasing in range and applications. This is also true when looking at rail applications and heavy duty trucks. Which is why there are a couple of dozen rail prototypes being developed and/or operationally tested in rail equipment, and hundreds underway in the bus and heavy duty truck applications.

Elon hates H2 because it doesn't need so many batteries (one of his best performing investments...). But range and vehicle time in service, and excess fleet costs are killing local transit operators budgets. This, as well a quick refueling capabilities, are what makes hydrogen so attractive in terms of cost savings over the costs associated with batteries and battery life cycle issues.

The large geopgraphic coverage,service frequencies, and route lengths of many urban and suburban bus operators would not be able to support the costs of "wires". So H2 is looking more an more competitive in meeting a ZEV standard for heavy duty vehicles (trains, buses, trucks, construction equipment...)

A future mix of "wired" and hydrogen power ZEV's would be neither immoral nor unhealthy from the taxpayer and consumer perspective, and allows "cost benefit" to answer the questions about how this mix should be configured.

Political influence peddling to force a single mandated technology as the sole ZEV solution is bad for taxpayers and consumers, and stifles economic innovation...

But, if you like the planned Soviet style economy, where forcing folks to electrify with wires regardless of the science or the costs, by lobbyist's able to impose "state" mandates to benefit themselves is what some folks would prefer, then this is not really about finding the most cost effective or efficient ZEV to "save the planet", is it? It's about getting the "gubmint" to forcibly mandate manufacture A's product a "monopoly", over manufacturer B's possibly more competitive alternative, screwing both consumers and taxpayers in the process.