Riversimple, an open letter
Today I received the following message from Lyndall, the social media manager at Riversimple.
I wanted to post their message in full and write a proper response which is below.
Their message:
Dear Sam, I manage the social media for Riversimple. We love the fact our channels are full of passionate dialogue; but are finding the persistence and volume of your posts hard to understand. I can tell you from a personal and professional perspective that I know the following about Riversimple: it was founded by someone who puts the environment first – all choices on powertrain made are guided by this, not to mention the business model and governance structure. The whole team are guided by the cornerstone of the business: “Mobility with zero cost to the planet.” Riversimple are not against measures to get people walking and cycling more; they aren’t anti people owning BEVs if they wish to. There is no campaign to derail these options. The path to a sustainable future is not an either, or situation – we need to adopt a new approach to almost every aspect of modern life, from eating habits, to how we get around – sooner rather than later. Militant opposition to a business that is fervently for a sustainable future seems so at odds with your stance. 16 years of development by a talented, very diverse team of designers and engineers has resulted in the Rasa – and your calculations and comments are not encouraging the team to replace the hydrogen fuel cell powertrain with a battery option. Hydrogen can be created using renewable sources. This route will without doubt reduce CO2 emissions and pollutants from our environment. Even using ‘brown’ hydrogen, the Rasa is undeniable efficient. Surely this alone is enough to accept the decision to choose a fuel cell for the Rasa. We can handle people not liking the car. We will never appeal to everyone. But how about directing your fervency and passion to those giant industries that have none of the conviction of Riversimple – which is an independent acting as a force of positive change? Or focus on championing the businesses and causes you do support. Yours sincerely, Lyndall
The following is a reply from me to Lyndall, the entire team at Riversimple and especially to Hugo Spowers who I have the utmost respect for.
Dear Riversimple
Firstly I want you to know how flattered I am that you have reached out to me personally. I actually am a big fan, even though you apparently don't realise it. I am sorry that you feel that I have been in 'militant opposition' to you because nothing could be further from the truth.
I have been having a fair share of action in recent discussions on Twitter regarding hydrogen fuel (H2) as a means of transportation which has frequently started with a post by someone referencing your company and thus you have been in the chain of tweets that have gone to and fro.
By virtue of the medium, Twitter isn't always the best place for discussions in terms of nuance of opinion. Due to the limited characters for replies its forced to give fairly concise comments. The topic of renewable and sustainable transportation/energy also garners a lot of heated debates amongst proponents of various technologies. (Side note: I've noticed as a software engineer that nerds often get the most animated and opinionated on debates about trivial things, such as whether to use tabs or spaces in code. I feel that the debates about battery vehicles (BEVs) or H2 fuel cell vehicles (FCEVs) often feels like a tabs or spaces argument on twiter).
So, as you seem to have missed it from my tweets, here is my honest opinion of your company and what you have accomplished:
I think its amazing, both your company, its vision, and what you've accomplished so far. I've been living in rented accommodation for some time (since I split from my previous partner), and I really hated having to go back to driving an ICE vehicle. I really wished I had a choice, and if the Rasa had been more widely available and fuelling stations were also around it would have been a perfect little commuter for me as I haven't had access to home charging.
But mostly I appreciate your vision of a clean sustainable future of transportation and the circular economy. I wish more companies had the same vision and goals.
That being said, my tweets have been pretty straightforward about my (lack of) confidence that H2 will be a good source of fuel for the long term and also for the mass market. My hopes for the future I believe are though, the same as yours, that the world transitions to clean sustainable energy and transportation.
15 years ago the best batteries had an energy density of 150wh/kg and cost over £1000 kwh. Tesla had just been founded by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning, and it would be 3 years before it release its first car. The Toyota Prius had been on sale only 3 years which used a small amount of NiMh batteries because that was pretty much the best option. Even in 2009 researchers from UC Davis were predicting that by 2035 BEVs (100 mile range lol) would be $15000 more than an ICE car vs $5500 more for a FCEV (summary by Transport Evolved). At that time when you were first starting your development on the Rasa, it seemed like FCEVs were the best bet to accelerate the development of a sustainable future.
Since then the development of Li-ion batteries has just gone mental. The capacity increasing every year and the cost dropping just as fast, with no signs of stopping any time soon. (Some people are predicting a 200 mile BEV will be cheaper than an equivalent ICE car by as soon as 2020) In addition some very well researched articles have been released (such as this one) going into the practicalities of powering the entire economy using H2 which clearly indicate that it isn't the best choice in terms of efficiency. That being said nothing I've read or written says that H2 should be completely discounted from the energy mix. There are definitely some use-cases where FCEVs will be the best choice, especially in the short term (until batteries are so cheap and energy dense that we will use them everywhere always). My opinion is that the best use case for them is in really big vehicles that must go many thousands of miles before refuelling, such as cargo boats. H2 storage is the big issue here and having a really large vessel greatly simplifies the storage problems (the space shuttle external fuel tank weighed just 26.5 tonnes but stored 733 tonnes of H2. Admittedly an earth based tank would however need substantially improved insulation to prevent boil off).
That being said, I think your Rasa will have a great market, especially as you are really only targeting it at a specific niche. (I read somewhere that you are targeting 5000 units per year). Currently there are for sure people that would love to have a greener vehicle for their commutes and do not have access to home charging due to living in rented or a flat etc and also who live near one of your charging stations. If they can afford your monthly fee I'm sure they will jump at the chance to drive one of your cars, I know I would (unfortunately I don't live near your charging station.)
In the longer term I am confident that public charging infrastructure will improve and the use-cases for H2 will get even smaller, but more options now is definitely a good thing.
Really my criticism, where I have had some, is not at your company, but at what people are trying to claim about your company. For instance claiming the FCEVs are going to dominate the market, or that FCEVs are more environmental or more efficient than BEVs. It turns out that some of these very people have vested interests in the FF industry and at least one was a climate change denier.
You yourself have never claimed to be a FCEV company, I seem to remember you saying that you are technology agnostic. For this reason I am surprised that you have not yet produced or announced the intent to produce a BEV Rasa. For people with access to a home charging point these would be much more convenient to run (home charging is so lovely), cheaper for you (no fuel costs), cheaper to produce, and if designed correctly you could upgrade the battery packs every few years making them lighter and better performing. Given my previous blog post it seems a BEV version would be no heavier (for slightly less range) or only slightly heavier (same range) than the H2 version and with new batteries coming online soon both lighter and better range. I would also love to see larger vehicles more suited to the mass market from you, e.g. not limited to 60 mph and with 4+ seats. (However these things take time, I am not trying to be critical).
There are many arguments for and against BEV vs FCEV and the discussions I've had with proponents of each on twitter have been genuinely delightful, entertaining and informative. Its a shame that your company gets held up as the beacon of hope for some FCEV enthusiasts (when in reality I believe you care more about the final goal (sustainable transportation) than the particular method of energy storage), as this has meant that tweets about your company have really kicked off the debate which at times has meant some comments that could be interpreted as being critical of you.
I copy below links to many of my tweets where I try to offer a balanced nuanced position on the topic demonstrating that I am not out to get you and am certainly not in 'Militant opposition'.
Please accept my sincere apologies to anyone there who has felt like I was attacking them or their work.
https://twitter.com/CrampedEyes/status/955141977481326593
https://twitter.com/CrampedEyes/status/936146232078192641
https://twitter.com/CrampedEyes/status/918964070811881472
https://twitter.com/CrampedEyes/status/955800751338598400
https://twitter.com/CrampedEyes/status/955751592766164992
https://twitter.com/CrampedEyes/status/940902274016178176
I wanted to post their message in full and write a proper response which is below.
Their message:
Dear Sam, I manage the social media for Riversimple. We love the fact our channels are full of passionate dialogue; but are finding the persistence and volume of your posts hard to understand. I can tell you from a personal and professional perspective that I know the following about Riversimple: it was founded by someone who puts the environment first – all choices on powertrain made are guided by this, not to mention the business model and governance structure. The whole team are guided by the cornerstone of the business: “Mobility with zero cost to the planet.” Riversimple are not against measures to get people walking and cycling more; they aren’t anti people owning BEVs if they wish to. There is no campaign to derail these options. The path to a sustainable future is not an either, or situation – we need to adopt a new approach to almost every aspect of modern life, from eating habits, to how we get around – sooner rather than later. Militant opposition to a business that is fervently for a sustainable future seems so at odds with your stance. 16 years of development by a talented, very diverse team of designers and engineers has resulted in the Rasa – and your calculations and comments are not encouraging the team to replace the hydrogen fuel cell powertrain with a battery option. Hydrogen can be created using renewable sources. This route will without doubt reduce CO2 emissions and pollutants from our environment. Even using ‘brown’ hydrogen, the Rasa is undeniable efficient. Surely this alone is enough to accept the decision to choose a fuel cell for the Rasa. We can handle people not liking the car. We will never appeal to everyone. But how about directing your fervency and passion to those giant industries that have none of the conviction of Riversimple – which is an independent acting as a force of positive change? Or focus on championing the businesses and causes you do support. Yours sincerely, Lyndall
The following is a reply from me to Lyndall, the entire team at Riversimple and especially to Hugo Spowers who I have the utmost respect for.
Dear Riversimple
Firstly I want you to know how flattered I am that you have reached out to me personally. I actually am a big fan, even though you apparently don't realise it. I am sorry that you feel that I have been in 'militant opposition' to you because nothing could be further from the truth.
I have been having a fair share of action in recent discussions on Twitter regarding hydrogen fuel (H2) as a means of transportation which has frequently started with a post by someone referencing your company and thus you have been in the chain of tweets that have gone to and fro.
By virtue of the medium, Twitter isn't always the best place for discussions in terms of nuance of opinion. Due to the limited characters for replies its forced to give fairly concise comments. The topic of renewable and sustainable transportation/energy also garners a lot of heated debates amongst proponents of various technologies. (Side note: I've noticed as a software engineer that nerds often get the most animated and opinionated on debates about trivial things, such as whether to use tabs or spaces in code. I feel that the debates about battery vehicles (BEVs) or H2 fuel cell vehicles (FCEVs) often feels like a tabs or spaces argument on twiter).
So, as you seem to have missed it from my tweets, here is my honest opinion of your company and what you have accomplished:
I think its amazing, both your company, its vision, and what you've accomplished so far. I've been living in rented accommodation for some time (since I split from my previous partner), and I really hated having to go back to driving an ICE vehicle. I really wished I had a choice, and if the Rasa had been more widely available and fuelling stations were also around it would have been a perfect little commuter for me as I haven't had access to home charging.
But mostly I appreciate your vision of a clean sustainable future of transportation and the circular economy. I wish more companies had the same vision and goals.
That being said, my tweets have been pretty straightforward about my (lack of) confidence that H2 will be a good source of fuel for the long term and also for the mass market. My hopes for the future I believe are though, the same as yours, that the world transitions to clean sustainable energy and transportation.
15 years ago the best batteries had an energy density of 150wh/kg and cost over £1000 kwh. Tesla had just been founded by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning, and it would be 3 years before it release its first car. The Toyota Prius had been on sale only 3 years which used a small amount of NiMh batteries because that was pretty much the best option. Even in 2009 researchers from UC Davis were predicting that by 2035 BEVs (100 mile range lol) would be $15000 more than an ICE car vs $5500 more for a FCEV (summary by Transport Evolved). At that time when you were first starting your development on the Rasa, it seemed like FCEVs were the best bet to accelerate the development of a sustainable future.
Since then the development of Li-ion batteries has just gone mental. The capacity increasing every year and the cost dropping just as fast, with no signs of stopping any time soon. (Some people are predicting a 200 mile BEV will be cheaper than an equivalent ICE car by as soon as 2020) In addition some very well researched articles have been released (such as this one) going into the practicalities of powering the entire economy using H2 which clearly indicate that it isn't the best choice in terms of efficiency. That being said nothing I've read or written says that H2 should be completely discounted from the energy mix. There are definitely some use-cases where FCEVs will be the best choice, especially in the short term (until batteries are so cheap and energy dense that we will use them everywhere always). My opinion is that the best use case for them is in really big vehicles that must go many thousands of miles before refuelling, such as cargo boats. H2 storage is the big issue here and having a really large vessel greatly simplifies the storage problems (the space shuttle external fuel tank weighed just 26.5 tonnes but stored 733 tonnes of H2. Admittedly an earth based tank would however need substantially improved insulation to prevent boil off).
That being said, I think your Rasa will have a great market, especially as you are really only targeting it at a specific niche. (I read somewhere that you are targeting 5000 units per year). Currently there are for sure people that would love to have a greener vehicle for their commutes and do not have access to home charging due to living in rented or a flat etc and also who live near one of your charging stations. If they can afford your monthly fee I'm sure they will jump at the chance to drive one of your cars, I know I would (unfortunately I don't live near your charging station.)
In the longer term I am confident that public charging infrastructure will improve and the use-cases for H2 will get even smaller, but more options now is definitely a good thing.
Really my criticism, where I have had some, is not at your company, but at what people are trying to claim about your company. For instance claiming the FCEVs are going to dominate the market, or that FCEVs are more environmental or more efficient than BEVs. It turns out that some of these very people have vested interests in the FF industry and at least one was a climate change denier.
You yourself have never claimed to be a FCEV company, I seem to remember you saying that you are technology agnostic. For this reason I am surprised that you have not yet produced or announced the intent to produce a BEV Rasa. For people with access to a home charging point these would be much more convenient to run (home charging is so lovely), cheaper for you (no fuel costs), cheaper to produce, and if designed correctly you could upgrade the battery packs every few years making them lighter and better performing. Given my previous blog post it seems a BEV version would be no heavier (for slightly less range) or only slightly heavier (same range) than the H2 version and with new batteries coming online soon both lighter and better range. I would also love to see larger vehicles more suited to the mass market from you, e.g. not limited to 60 mph and with 4+ seats. (However these things take time, I am not trying to be critical).
There are many arguments for and against BEV vs FCEV and the discussions I've had with proponents of each on twitter have been genuinely delightful, entertaining and informative. Its a shame that your company gets held up as the beacon of hope for some FCEV enthusiasts (when in reality I believe you care more about the final goal (sustainable transportation) than the particular method of energy storage), as this has meant that tweets about your company have really kicked off the debate which at times has meant some comments that could be interpreted as being critical of you.
I copy below links to many of my tweets where I try to offer a balanced nuanced position on the topic demonstrating that I am not out to get you and am certainly not in 'Militant opposition'.
Please accept my sincere apologies to anyone there who has felt like I was attacking them or their work.
https://twitter.com/CrampedEyes/status/955141977481326593
https://twitter.com/CrampedEyes/status/936146232078192641
https://twitter.com/CrampedEyes/status/918964070811881472
https://twitter.com/CrampedEyes/status/955800751338598400
https://twitter.com/CrampedEyes/status/955751592766164992
https://twitter.com/CrampedEyes/status/940902274016178176
Comments
Post a Comment