RacerZ, not entirely true, but certainly in California as a whole coal is a much smaller portion than other places:
http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/electricity_generation.html
Remember, residential solar isn't tabulated in Energy company reports, because the power company doesn't own, or pay you for it in most cases. So in many instances, residential solar is creeping into the mix without power companies reporting it as a core replacement source.
Note the halving of Nuclear with the shut down of San Onofre and the quick rise of solar over the last few years as cost per watt of PVs have plummeted.
LA still uses way too much coal:
https://www.ladwp.com/ladwp/faces/ladwp/aboutus/a-power/a-p-factandfigures?_adf.ctrl-state=ueq79q3gb_4&_afrLoop=41214962565036
Nat. Gas continues to be appear the cheap rockstar of modern production, but Fracking my crack soon as more wells and aquifers are tainted, and fracking induced earthquakes become more well understood by the population. Many BEV fans plop PVs on their roof to at least offset the driving they'll do with solar, even if the time shifting of when they plug in means it's Nat. Gas that is powering at night. Eventually, and I suggest it could be very quickly with the right will, we could use solar, wind, and hydro plus Pump Storage Hydro and Thermal Solar for time offset, and stop Nuclear, Coal, and Nat. Gas usage in all our vehicles.
Let's talk about efficiency. A BEV is somewhere in the realm of 90% efficient in its application of power received back into the job required. ICE engines 40% on a very good day. So the electric motor (in H2 fuel cell or BEV form) has a giant advantage of not wasting 50% of its energy to heat/unburned. This is why BEVs powered from coal are still much cleaner than gas or diesel, as far as wasted energy and CO2 emissions.
Hydrogen powered cars will be powered by Natural Gas refractured into H2 (so fracked and refracked. This is because it's the economical way of generating H2. CARB has a rule stating H2 vehicle fuel production must have 1/3 production from a renewable process (PEM electrolysis), so H2 will be more expensive in CA, and will likely be a net waste of energy as using power to break H2O is currently a loss leader in energy production. Like much of the Ethanol production, you use more energy making your fuel than you get in the end.
Hydrogen also has no fueling stations, and I mean that quite literally. Don't confuse Nat Gas buses. There are tens of stations in the world open to the public in the WORLD. Each station will cost avg $2.5M to install/retrofit, so don't expect Blue Bell PA to get one for the first two guys there who would like to buy an FCV. California and CARB is pushing ahead with $200M of sucker money to seed H2 stations. Wow, 80 stations. But for H2 to take off, a tremendous amount of investment has to happen at the station level, and adoption will be much more challenging because the guy in Blue Bell, already has electricity in his garage, and less importantly, for a small price, his boss might buy a bank of chargers.
Yes Hyundai, Toyota, and Honda are all bringing cars to "market". But watch the details. If they lease them, this is strictly for compliance and CARB credits which they get much more for FCV than BEV. Leasing only is a sign that it is still a huge loss leader and they are hoping to pull them back when conditions change, a la first round of EV, in 1990s. Toyota has announced essentially what equates to an FCV Camry for $50,000 but insiders say this is still costing them $100,000 to produce each one, so more than $50k loss per unit after you get logistics/sales in the mix. So either Toyota is creating for show, the 2001 Insight (Honda's awesome $18,000 hybrid, that was better and lighter than all hybrids that followed, but was pulled because it wasn't selling and if it did, they'd continue to lose even more money per unit) or they are going for CARB credits. I think they're trying to prove they won't work, so they can put their 20 year long project to bed once and for all. Don't expect $50k Camrys to sell well, nor for anyone outside of strategic CA pockets to have access to H2 fueling.
Lurrr, Lithium Ion Batteries are with the exception of diamonds and plutonium, one of the most recyclable things you'll find. They cost a lot to produce, and they tear them down to reuse the lithium. No argument that it's messy, but 5 years battery life for a BEV is not correct at all. Tesla Roadsters, the first production vehicles to use Li batteries, are all still running with their original batteries, to my knowledge, save one guy who abandoned his car for months and bricked it. Zero Motorcycles predict 385,000 miles from their carefully managed lithium cells on their S ZF11.4 w/powertank.
http://www.zeromotorcycles.com/zero-s/specs.php Is it BS? Time will tell.
Finally, RacerZ, range of BEV is puny for sure. But consider this aspect. Presumably we all work, and for many a spouse does too. Typically we drive to that job an average of 30 miles or less a day. For me and my wife it's 50 and 90 miles respectively and she's got chargers at work. So for 5 days a week, I need a car to go much less than 300 miles range. As a 4C owner/perspecitive owner, you're likely in a situation where you can keep more than one car per driver. So you drive a BEV to work, and use your ICE car for trips out of state (or rent one. Fiat and BMW include ICE loaners/paid rentals in their purchase agreements) Given that scenario, most of us should consider the fun BEV instead of the fun weekend car, because you'll use it most every day, so BEV even with short range, have the utility you need for 50 weeks a year. For me a 100-120 mile range would be fine, and a 4C body and 6 speed box (DCT or manual) would be a stellar commuter.
