Is it up to companies to take losses (with the loss of profit/jobs/damage to the economy) in order to be "socially responsible"???
Social responsibility is the consumers job. If you dont like it, dont buy it.
I guess were just "government stooges" Rich....
The government can dictate things like clean air and air quality. Based upon that the comanies must meet this new standards and usualy technology is available to meet these standards. In the case of the Electric car in the 50's it was not really available for long term usage and durability, while later with the EV-1 it was there, but not cost effective.
Having better emissions on vehicles is good, and the comapny then operates within the laws. This is good as it also passes on the cost to the consumers who use these devices. The problem is education in this case. the consumer things that it is the fault of the company be it GM or Consumer Energy for raising their prices. When the coal burnign plants had to put scrubbers on their stack to clean the output of their plants they took a hit to their profit margin. As a company they have a responisbility to try to make money for the investers. So prices go up. The problem is that people do not understand why the prices go up.
If you look at the cost of living and inflation increases through the 90's and the price of cars, the price of cars actually went down when this is factored in. Also note that they had more quality and content this was areas with numbers on their side of being able to produce in mass quanititied to make some profit. This Includes all the tier I, II, III and other suppliers. So in some cases this was good, but it was more to market prssure, from outside sources that were able to produce products at a cheaper cost with less fixed costs, i.e. health care and pension and labor, ..., . So some of these companies ended up in financial trouble when the market bubble burst. i.e. Chrysler merger and Ford and the losses posted by GM.
The hidden cost of a fuel cell will be the distribution and recharging costs of the hydrogen. But if one wants to pay this to feel better, then it is good. If one wants to pay this to dothe right thing for the environment this is good. The issue is that this technology is more cost effective then it was a few years ago. Also, they are pretty close the 50% mark, or one for one. i.e. the energy to produce the hydrogen is what they get out of it. The improvements are out there in labs, the issue is to get them to manufacturing. The number of times I have had to argue with the PhD's who think it is just an easy thing to just go build a million of something and have it work in all conditions when they did all their work in a controlled lab enviroment, would allow me to retire if I got paid a reasonable wage for that time. It is good to invent. It is good to bring it to the table. It is nto good to make leaps, with out evidence and understanding the liabilities of taking a product to the market.
I personally would like to see how the FCX handles the -40 degree temperature of Kapuskasing Ontario. Will it operate? Do they have heaters to heat up the system? What is the cost effectiveness of these heaters? Now of course people will argue that it is not a valid thing to say one will sell that many fuel cell vehicles in "Kap" as we call it. But the truth is we could sell one to everyone there. In the winter many times they start their care in the morning and then do not shut it off until the end of the day. If a fuel cell could keep itself heated just enough to operate or today's hybrind did the same then it would be a good thing. But if one needs an IC Engine to generate heat then it is not effeicient. If one has to wait after the system is powered up for it to warm up, may cause complaints from the market and poor JD Power and Consumer Reports numbers.
The same holds true with Death Valley and 130 F temperature. Climbing grades and altitude and heat. What happens if the sytem sits and bakes all day in the sun? More than likely it works just like ti would work at -40, but in some reduced format, reduced power or operating capaibility. Some people are willing to accept this but others are not.
So, my issues with California though are that they use national numbers to check and monitor vehicles and not sales alone in California. They did with the ZEV vehicles and requiring 2% of all sales to be such without technology being available at a cost effective point, is bad regulations. Law cannot dictate science or manufactring capability.
Did you know that there are laws about vehcile manufacturers that would cripple most other industries. They cannot won over a certain percentage of theiri dealerships. They must be independantly owned. The manufacture must carry parts for 10 years after the model year. Imagine a cell phone company of comptuer company or game company or tv or DVD player or any electronics maker having to have parts for 10 years by law. They cannot survive as they change as fast as 6 months or even faster. Note, one could say well the suppliers will have it on stock. That means cost tied up that is not making them money for their investors. Bad business. So, they refuse the contracts, and the manufacture of the vehicle has to do a buy for life. They agree to buy so many at the end of the program and hope to have enough based upon warranty projections to cover the requirement.
One old contract, had the supplier making the part. They contacted a company and told them they could not longer make the chip as the it was to costly and the tooling was no longer good, thery were switching to this new chip and so we had to spend money to revalidate the whole system, because the supplier can jsut stop building and is the Car manufacture that is left holding the bag with the legal requirement. One person even told them they would put the company out of business for this action. The supplier laughed and stated that the business was less than 2 percent of 1 percent of their total business. Cell phones and other hand held devices being their market. They were only doing this to be nice as they had such a long standing history with the vehicle manufacturer.
The days of the vehicle manufacturer being king are over. The legal issues they deal with are so great and I have only barely touched a few that I know of.
Education and open mind to listening to what others have to say, is what is required. But who ever said we need an educated customer? Most prefer an uneducated customer, as then they can slip something by them. In this case, I think the government is the one slipping things by, with all their new regulations that are not proven in the field yet, and other requirements that are not on any other product in the market.
Sorry for the rant. I will step down now. :soapbox:
****
Like I said FCX is out. GM has Fuel Cells in the publics hands to get more feedback and real work testing. I would expect that this will be a player in the future, but may not be the long term solution.
