6 ms·

Elon Musk Calls Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars ‘Bullshit’

33 points by spazz 13y ago

codex 13y ago
Man with billions invested in electric cars disparages competing technology? I am shocked. The fact is, you don't need to have a high energy density with hydrogen, as existing gas stations can be used to quick refuel a hydrogen car (with robotic assist, perhaps), without the logistical mess that comes from swapping an extremely heavy, very expensive, potentially user-abused battery with another one. You can even burn hydrogen in an ICE engine, as BMW has demonstrated. The Honda Clarity FCX, a hydrogen powered car, is the only other car to achieve Type V California ZEV credits besides the Model S. Perhaps that's too much competition for Musk. The range of that car is 240 miles.
- beat 13y ago
  I'd give Elon Musk more credit than generic CEO spin for this. If he thought hydrogen was viable, he'd be working on it.
  - corresation 13y ago
    If he thought hydrogen was viable, he'd be working on it. He is one person, and he is not all knowing. He has limited time and potential. He also has a significant ego and financial interest in their current course. He's a smart guy, but I'm not going to write something off because he isn't into it.
  - Kylekramer 13y ago
    I give Musk a bit more credit than most CEOs, but he has also shown himself to be very capable of playing the spin game in the press recently (the funky math on the 'new finance product', declaring that the NYT backed off its Tesla piece when they in no way did).
- magic_haze 13y ago
  Yes, I was hoping the article actually shared some of the research Tesla must undoubtedly have done about the feasibility of fuel cells. Yes, they have limited range, but so do batteries. But while it takes _hours_ to recharge a battery, refueling hydrogen takes a couple of minutes, same as petrol. All his other arguments about infrastructure and safety apply equally well to petrol cars, and yet here we somehow managed to implement that efficiently. I don't see any inherent reason why we can't do the same for Hydrogen.
  - jsight 13y ago
    Teslas do not take hours to charge when Superchargers are taken into account. The Superchargers can charge 50% in 30 minutes (80% in 40 minutes)[1]. [1] http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger
  - thangalin 13y ago
    Tesla plans to create battery-swapping stations that switch battery packs faster than filling an empty petrol tank, which can mitigate recharging.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  And how much energy is lost converting energy to hydrogen? Because there are no native hydrogen energy stores. You're either using electricity to crack water, or you're going to crack natural gas. Its more efficient to simply use batteries. EDIT: I'd like to point out, generating hydrogen does make sense if you're using an energy source that is essentially free. Too much hydro and you have to dump the water anyway? Make hydrogen. Too much wind and the transmission operator is shutting down your production? Make hydrogen. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense to use it as an energy transfer medium. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy#Current_production_methods http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy#Current_produc...
  - soperj 13y ago
    source? edit: that link doesn't really say that hydrogen is less efficent than batteries, just that it has less energy than the energy content of the original fuel, which is true with charging a battery too because of transmission losses, ect.
    - cheald 13y ago
      Nature? Free hydrogen doesn't really exist on earth; atmospheric hydrogen is something like 1 ppm. There's tons of hydrogen on earth, but it's all in water and hydrocarbons, which you have to split to get to the hydrogen itself. The Wikipedia article on water splitting notes that "production of hydrogen from water requires large amounts of energy and is uncompetitive with production from coal or natural gas." If you're capturing it as a byproduct of an existing process, then it probably makes sense, but just applying electricity to water to generate hydrogen to burn isn't very economical right now.
  - frezik 13y ago
    I know, we'll get it from the atmosphere of Jupiter!
    - chris_mahan 13y ago
      With a fleet of SpaceX Falcon Heavies?
- walshemj 13y ago
  And you can use wind/wave/solar energy that is "spare" to crack hydrogen for storage. The ability to use effectively the same engines and plant is a big plus for hydrogen.
  - frezik 13y ago
    It's more efficient and simpler to use that spare energy to pump water uphill: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
    - Xylakant 13y ago
      That pumped water requires a lot of space up there, so viable spots are fairly limited. It also is fairly difficult to transport compared to hydrogen.
      - frezik 13y ago
        If we're talking about the US, we have tons of open space. Really, tons. Americans don't appreciate just how much open space is in this country. If it's really a concern, it can be done with water towers rather than a conveniently-placed hill. As for transport, that's what a power grid is for. Transporting hydrogen loses more efficiency than transmission losses. Batteries are way ahead on every objective measure, and getting better every year.
        walshemj 13y ago
        Um have you seen a pumped storage power plants they are major civil engineering constructions. You could probably add a small hydrogen storage facility to every wind farm in the UK for less than the cost of the public inquiry into a new pumped storage scheme.
        tezza 13y ago
        I'm afraid the physics just don't work out for Hydro. See the Hydro section of Sustainable Energy - without the hot air by David JC MacKay: http://www.withouthotair.com/c8/page_55.shtml http://www.withouthotair.com/c8/page_55.shtml Even though the land mass of the US is larger than the UK, it's hard to see hydro being more than MacKay's 2kW per day per person... That's two 40W light bulbs left on all day.
beat 13y ago
There are three pressing concerns for hydrogen fuel cells, which can be added up to "bullshit". First, energy density. I can't speak to that in detail, but the range problem is serious. Then again, the range problem seemed insurmountable for electric cars until Tesla got within spitting distance. Second, platinum. Traditional hydrogen cells require some platinum in the catalyst, which is fine at lab scales, but unviable at industrial scale. There have been advances in alternative catalysts recently, but until fuel cells can be built without rare and exotic raw materials, they're just a toy. Third, power source. Hydrogen comes from cracking water, which requires energy. It's just a storage medium for energy provided during the cracking process. What's the end-to-end thermal efficiency of that process? And where does the power come from? Of course, this problem applies 100% to battery-powered cars as well.
- soperj 13y ago
  It applies to gasoline cars too, you need energy to process oil into gasoline.
  - saalweachter 13y ago
    Oil is a net positive on the energy, even with the energy cost to refine it. Generating hydrogen from water is a net negative on the energy, guaranteed, by thermodynamics. Unless we start stealing it from an extra-planetary source, it is best to think of hydrogen as a battery, not a fuel.
    - soperj 13y ago
      Or if they use algae or a microbial process to produce hydrogen instead, or concentrated solar to dissociate water into hydrogen and oxygen? Electrolysis isn't the only option.
    - mchannon 13y ago
      Oil is not a net positive on the energy; gasoline consumes more in electricity during the refining process than it contains; it's just in a much more useful form.
fiatmoney 13y ago
One advantage is the energy flux. Refueling a fuel cell, or filling a gas tank for that matter, is much faster than charging a battery.
headShrinker 13y ago
While everyone is talking up hydrogen as a clean alternative. Currently, 90% of hydrogen is refined using fossil fuels. Even if you account for hypothetical/nonexistent future technologies, the majority of hydrogen for the foreseeable future is coming from fossil fuels. Hydrogen is truly, "Bullshit". If it launches nationwide it be because gas companies are behind the push, and they will only do it once their gasoline revenue starts to dwindle.
- soperj 13y ago
  At the end of the day they're not burning the fossil fuel, so it is a clean alternative...
  - rory096 13y ago
    Except for every 4 H2 molecules you get a CO2 that's generally released to the atmosphere: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production
- Gonzih 13y ago
  But same can be applied to electricity. Yes you can get green electricity nowadays but majority is still produced by old fashion power stations.
  - a-priori 13y ago
    Depends where you are and your definition of 'green'. In Ontario, right now we're running on: - 57% nuclear - 25% hydro - 14% gas - 3% wind - 1% coal - <1% other (mostly natural gas, apparently) If you consider nuclear, hydroelectric and wind to be 'green' (in the sense that they don't produce CO2), then we're running on 85% green power in Ontario right now. Source: http://media.cns-snc.ca/ontarioelectricity/ontarioelectricity.html http://media.cns-snc.ca/ontarioelectricity/ontarioelectricit...
  - marvin 13y ago
    I don't understand why there is so much controversy and disagreement surrounding this question. Electric cars are a requirement for a sustainable energy economy. Where the energy comes from, doesn't really matter in the short term as long as it comes from renewable or nuclear energy in the long term. Regardless, people claiming that electric cars aren't green because the electrical power is often produced from fossil sources, conveniently forget that a lot of fossil fuels are spent producing petroleum fuels. You don't just stick a straw into the ground and have gasoline pour automatically into every gas station in the world. First, you have to have survey teams (often offshore) find oil. Then you have to build the production infrastructure to get it out of the ground. Then you have to add water injection and other tricks to get it out of the ground. Then you have to transport it to a refinery. Then you have to refine it. Then you have to transport it to gas stations. So it's not as easy as some of the naysayers claim.
api 13y ago
There are many technical problems with hydrogen: metal embrittlement, it leaks even through solid substances, etc. They're not insurmountable, but they make hydrogen not that competitive with electric. Elon is not a fan of H2 for rockets either for those very same reasons-- embrittlement, leakage, cost of storage and handling. Guy is flat out anti-hydrogen, man. That and once you have hydrogen it's not that hard to go from there to CH4-- methane. Once you're there, natural gas fuel cells and vehicles make more sense as methane is infinitely easier to handle and already has a ton of deployed infrastructure. They're already doing this in Germany-- making CH4 from H2O and CO2 with surplus renewable energy and then feeding it into the natural gas grid.
- XorNot 13y ago
  Pretty much this. Handling pure hydrogen is a suckers game in terms of complexity. The real problem is we don't have a compact, low temperature direct methane/direct methanol/ethanol fuel cell yet.
Gonzih 13y ago
IMHO hydrogen fuel cell technology is more practical. No charging time means that you can travel any range without delays as long as you have hydrogen fuel stations on your way. That kind of technology gives you more freedom I guess. You feel less limited by your vehicle. And as far as I know charging li-ion batteries is still very slow, they will go flat at some point, faster you are charging them faster they become flat and they are very heavy.
- XorNot 13y ago
  Charging time is overblown. You can charge a modern battery to 80% in about 5 minutes. That's about how long it takes to fill my car with gas at the moment. You're not going to be refueling a hydrogen fueled car that quick - it's a volatile, extremely high pressure, extremely cold gas. The safety considerations are substantial.
  - Gonzih 13y ago
    Ok, what about durability of batteries compared with durability of fuel cell? I'm just curious because I think that batteries are less durable right now than fuel cells.
    - stonemetal 13y ago
      http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/durability_group.html http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/durability_... DOE targets 5k hrs of operation for fuel cells used in transportation. I haven't been able to find an hours of operation for batteries. Wikipedia gins up some numbers to claim 10 to 20 years life expectancy. On the whole it seems batteries are in the lead at this point, but both are near the expected baseline for automobiles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle_battery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle_battery
  - walshemj 13y ago
    At what amperage and voltage and how much did it cost to upgrade the charging station connection to the grid. And how do you cool the battery during such a fast charge? what % of the energy is lost in heat from the chemical reaction - even Tesla has to obey the laws of thermo dynamics. Thinking about it from a thermofluids angle You could I suppose have a complex system of heat exchangers built in to the the battery pack and hook the car up to a water connection and flush chilled water (or better some non conductive fluid) through whilst charging but water and high voltage and amps are not the best of friends. Now where did i put my steam tables :-)
jredwards 13y ago
He's completely correct. I've never understood the allure of hydrogen fuel cell powered cars. It's just a shittier, less-viable version of a battery.
- soperj 13y ago
  The allure was that 15 years ago battery technology sucked.
Sagat 13y ago
Obey the Musk!
mongol 13y ago
Is it more bullshit than the hyperloop? This is not an attempt to troll ... but between the two fuel cells seem more realistic. Musk is exaggerating.
- ryguytilidie 13y ago
  Its not that hydrogen is unrealistic. Hydrogen cars currently exist. The problem is that mass producing hydrogen is just as problematic as mass producing gasoline.
mchannon 13y ago
As an interesting aside, the leading use for hydrogen today, with over 50% of all hydrogen used, is in oil refining. That hydrogen (along with almost all the balance) comes from steam-reformed natural gas. It's also true that more electricity is consumed refining gasoline (without even figuring the oil itself's energy) than in producing hydrogen (per gge). The important distinction is that gasoline is an outstanding motor fuel, able to deliver 3000x the volumetric energy density of hydrogen gas, 6x the volumetric energy density of compressed hydrogen and 3x the volumetric energy density of liquefied hydrogen. Those numbers get even more stark when you add in tank weights. Musk's Youtube video demonstrates a battery changeout faster than a gasoline fillup (BTW, ever filled up a tank with H2? It's not as fast as gasoline per gge; not even close). I share the BS opinion on hydrogen fuel cells. Hydrogen tanks cost too much, weigh too much and better alternatives exist.
ChuckMcM 13y ago
Interesting comment. I really like Elon but I think he's a bit off here. My reasoning is that fuel is fuel. Basically you get the energy out of gasoline through an exothermic reaction with oxygen, you get the energy out of Lithium Phosphate by the electron exchange reactions with the cathode. Fuel cells can be the middle road, liquid fuel into electron exchange through catalysts. The "issue" with fuel cells is that you cannot easily make fuel at home. I get that, if we're one end use energy form (electricity) then we can optimize the infrastructure to carry and deliver that efficiently. But arguments about energy density are silly. There is way more energy in a gallon of gas than you can put into an equal volume or weight of battery. That is why you can use it as a fuel at 20% efficiency and still have a viable business model. So what is 'bullshit' here? Is it that people won't create the infrastructure to make fuel cell friendly fuels? Is it that a parallel fuel structure can't compete with the existing gas distribution infrastructure? So I don't buy the idea that fuel cells as a power mechanism are non-viable but could see and argument that a car eco system based on them is unlikely.
adambom 13y ago
It kind of bothers me when people talk about fuel cell vehicles as being "emissions free". Producing the Hydrogen required to run a fuel cell requires either electrolysis of water, or extracting it from natural gas. That's really energy intensive. Either the emissions come out your tailpipe or go out a smokestack. Pick your poison. There are other interesting fuel cell technologies that use liquids, like methanol, instead of Hydrogen as a fuel source, but even Methanol requires energy to be produced.
elchief 13y ago
Here's Ballard's 10-year stock performance: https://www.google.ca/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1382558400000&chddm=983365&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=TSE:BLD&ntsp=0&ei=CwpoUrmRAoP-qAGJ7AE https://www.google.ca/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&c... Obama cut funding for fuel cell research a few years ago: http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/obama-to-cut-funding-for-hydrogen-fuel-cell-research.html http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/obama-to-...
tocomment 13y ago
Has anyone looked into running the fuel cell in reverse to recharge it? I remember seeing a demo at a fair where it was a sealed fuel cell and it could go from h2 02 to water and then run it in reverse to recreate the o2 and h2. If that's feasible it could simply be a new type of battery, no?

33 points by spazz 13y ago

codex 13y ago

Man with billions invested in electric cars disparages competing technology? I am shocked. The fact is, you don't need to have a high energy density with hydrogen, as existing gas stations can be used to quick refuel a hydrogen car (with robotic assist, perhaps), without the logistical mess that comes from swapping an extremely heavy, very expensive, potentially user-abused battery with another one. You can even burn hydrogen in an ICE engine, as BMW has demonstrated. The Honda Clarity FCX, a hydrogen powered car, is the only other car to achieve Type V California ZEV credits besides the Model S. Perhaps that's too much competition for Musk. The range of that car is 240 miles.

beat 13y ago
I'd give Elon Musk more credit than generic CEO spin for this. If he thought hydrogen was viable, he'd be working on it.
- corresation 13y ago
  If he thought hydrogen was viable, he'd be working on it. He is one person, and he is not all knowing. He has limited time and potential. He also has a significant ego and financial interest in their current course. He's a smart guy, but I'm not going to write something off because he isn't into it.
- Kylekramer 13y ago
  I give Musk a bit more credit than most CEOs, but he has also shown himself to be very capable of playing the spin game in the press recently (the funky math on the 'new finance product', declaring that the NYT backed off its Tesla piece when they in no way did).
magic_haze 13y ago
Yes, I was hoping the article actually shared some of the research Tesla must undoubtedly have done about the feasibility of fuel cells. Yes, they have limited range, but so do batteries. But while it takes _hours_ to recharge a battery, refueling hydrogen takes a couple of minutes, same as petrol. All his other arguments about infrastructure and safety apply equally well to petrol cars, and yet here we somehow managed to implement that efficiently. I don't see any inherent reason why we can't do the same for Hydrogen.
- jsight 13y ago
  Teslas do not take hours to charge when Superchargers are taken into account. The Superchargers can charge 50% in 30 minutes (80% in 40 minutes)[1]. [1] http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger
- thangalin 13y ago
  Tesla plans to create battery-swapping stations that switch battery packs faster than filling an empty petrol tank, which can mitigate recharging.
toomuchtodo 13y ago
And how much energy is lost converting energy to hydrogen? Because there are no native hydrogen energy stores. You're either using electricity to crack water, or you're going to crack natural gas. Its more efficient to simply use batteries. EDIT: I'd like to point out, generating hydrogen does make sense if you're using an energy source that is essentially free. Too much hydro and you have to dump the water anyway? Make hydrogen. Too much wind and the transmission operator is shutting down your production? Make hydrogen. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense to use it as an energy transfer medium. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy#Current_production_methods http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy#Current_produc...
- soperj 13y ago
  source? edit: that link doesn't really say that hydrogen is less efficent than batteries, just that it has less energy than the energy content of the original fuel, which is true with charging a battery too because of transmission losses, ect.
  - cheald 13y ago
    Nature? Free hydrogen doesn't really exist on earth; atmospheric hydrogen is something like 1 ppm. There's tons of hydrogen on earth, but it's all in water and hydrocarbons, which you have to split to get to the hydrogen itself. The Wikipedia article on water splitting notes that "production of hydrogen from water requires large amounts of energy and is uncompetitive with production from coal or natural gas." If you're capturing it as a byproduct of an existing process, then it probably makes sense, but just applying electricity to water to generate hydrogen to burn isn't very economical right now.
- frezik 13y ago
  I know, we'll get it from the atmosphere of Jupiter!
  - chris_mahan 13y ago
    With a fleet of SpaceX Falcon Heavies?
walshemj 13y ago
And you can use wind/wave/solar energy that is "spare" to crack hydrogen for storage. The ability to use effectively the same engines and plant is a big plus for hydrogen.
- frezik 13y ago
  It's more efficient and simpler to use that spare energy to pump water uphill: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
  - Xylakant 13y ago
    That pumped water requires a lot of space up there, so viable spots are fairly limited. It also is fairly difficult to transport compared to hydrogen.
    - frezik 13y ago
      If we're talking about the US, we have tons of open space. Really, tons. Americans don't appreciate just how much open space is in this country. If it's really a concern, it can be done with water towers rather than a conveniently-placed hill. As for transport, that's what a power grid is for. Transporting hydrogen loses more efficiency than transmission losses. Batteries are way ahead on every objective measure, and getting better every year.
      - walshemj 13y ago
        Um have you seen a pumped storage power plants they are major civil engineering constructions. You could probably add a small hydrogen storage facility to every wind farm in the UK for less than the cost of the public inquiry into a new pumped storage scheme.
      - tezza 13y ago
        I'm afraid the physics just don't work out for Hydro. See the Hydro section of Sustainable Energy - without the hot air by David JC MacKay: http://www.withouthotair.com/c8/page_55.shtml http://www.withouthotair.com/c8/page_55.shtml Even though the land mass of the US is larger than the UK, it's hard to see hydro being more than MacKay's 2kW per day per person... That's two 40W light bulbs left on all day.

beat 13y ago

There are three pressing concerns for hydrogen fuel cells, which can be added up to "bullshit". First, energy density. I can't speak to that in detail, but the range problem is serious. Then again, the range problem seemed insurmountable for electric cars until Tesla got within spitting distance. Second, platinum. Traditional hydrogen cells require some platinum in the catalyst, which is fine at lab scales, but unviable at industrial scale. There have been advances in alternative catalysts recently, but until fuel cells can be built without rare and exotic raw materials, they're just a toy. Third, power source. Hydrogen comes from cracking water, which requires energy. It's just a storage medium for energy provided during the cracking process. What's the end-to-end thermal efficiency of that process? And where does the power come from? Of course, this problem applies 100% to battery-powered cars as well.

soperj 13y ago
It applies to gasoline cars too, you need energy to process oil into gasoline.
- saalweachter 13y ago
  Oil is a net positive on the energy, even with the energy cost to refine it. Generating hydrogen from water is a net negative on the energy, guaranteed, by thermodynamics. Unless we start stealing it from an extra-planetary source, it is best to think of hydrogen as a battery, not a fuel.
  - soperj 13y ago
    Or if they use algae or a microbial process to produce hydrogen instead, or concentrated solar to dissociate water into hydrogen and oxygen? Electrolysis isn't the only option.
  - mchannon 13y ago
    Oil is not a net positive on the energy; gasoline consumes more in electricity during the refining process than it contains; it's just in a much more useful form.

fiatmoney 13y ago

One advantage is the energy flux. Refueling a fuel cell, or filling a gas tank for that matter, is much faster than charging a battery.

headShrinker 13y ago

While everyone is talking up hydrogen as a clean alternative. Currently, 90% of hydrogen is refined using fossil fuels. Even if you account for hypothetical/nonexistent future technologies, the majority of hydrogen for the foreseeable future is coming from fossil fuels. Hydrogen is truly, "Bullshit". If it launches nationwide it be because gas companies are behind the push, and they will only do it once their gasoline revenue starts to dwindle.

soperj 13y ago
At the end of the day they're not burning the fossil fuel, so it is a clean alternative...
- rory096 13y ago
  Except for every 4 H2 molecules you get a CO2 that's generally released to the atmosphere: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production
Gonzih 13y ago
But same can be applied to electricity. Yes you can get green electricity nowadays but majority is still produced by old fashion power stations.
- a-priori 13y ago
  Depends where you are and your definition of 'green'. In Ontario, right now we're running on: - 57% nuclear - 25% hydro - 14% gas - 3% wind - 1% coal - <1% other (mostly natural gas, apparently) If you consider nuclear, hydroelectric and wind to be 'green' (in the sense that they don't produce CO2), then we're running on 85% green power in Ontario right now. Source: http://media.cns-snc.ca/ontarioelectricity/ontarioelectricity.html http://media.cns-snc.ca/ontarioelectricity/ontarioelectricit...
- marvin 13y ago
  I don't understand why there is so much controversy and disagreement surrounding this question. Electric cars are a requirement for a sustainable energy economy. Where the energy comes from, doesn't really matter in the short term as long as it comes from renewable or nuclear energy in the long term. Regardless, people claiming that electric cars aren't green because the electrical power is often produced from fossil sources, conveniently forget that a lot of fossil fuels are spent producing petroleum fuels. You don't just stick a straw into the ground and have gasoline pour automatically into every gas station in the world. First, you have to have survey teams (often offshore) find oil. Then you have to build the production infrastructure to get it out of the ground. Then you have to add water injection and other tricks to get it out of the ground. Then you have to transport it to a refinery. Then you have to refine it. Then you have to transport it to gas stations. So it's not as easy as some of the naysayers claim.

api 13y ago

There are many technical problems with hydrogen: metal embrittlement, it leaks even through solid substances, etc. They're not insurmountable, but they make hydrogen not that competitive with electric. Elon is not a fan of H2 for rockets either for those very same reasons-- embrittlement, leakage, cost of storage and handling. Guy is flat out anti-hydrogen, man. That and once you have hydrogen it's not that hard to go from there to CH4-- methane. Once you're there, natural gas fuel cells and vehicles make more sense as methane is infinitely easier to handle and already has a ton of deployed infrastructure. They're already doing this in Germany-- making CH4 from H2O and CO2 with surplus renewable energy and then feeding it into the natural gas grid.

XorNot 13y ago
Pretty much this. Handling pure hydrogen is a suckers game in terms of complexity. The real problem is we don't have a compact, low temperature direct methane/direct methanol/ethanol fuel cell yet.

Gonzih 13y ago

IMHO hydrogen fuel cell technology is more practical. No charging time means that you can travel any range without delays as long as you have hydrogen fuel stations on your way. That kind of technology gives you more freedom I guess. You feel less limited by your vehicle. And as far as I know charging li-ion batteries is still very slow, they will go flat at some point, faster you are charging them faster they become flat and they are very heavy.

XorNot 13y ago
Charging time is overblown. You can charge a modern battery to 80% in about 5 minutes. That's about how long it takes to fill my car with gas at the moment. You're not going to be refueling a hydrogen fueled car that quick - it's a volatile, extremely high pressure, extremely cold gas. The safety considerations are substantial.
- Gonzih 13y ago
  Ok, what about durability of batteries compared with durability of fuel cell? I'm just curious because I think that batteries are less durable right now than fuel cells.
  - stonemetal 13y ago
    http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/durability_group.html http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/durability_... DOE targets 5k hrs of operation for fuel cells used in transportation. I haven't been able to find an hours of operation for batteries. Wikipedia gins up some numbers to claim 10 to 20 years life expectancy. On the whole it seems batteries are in the lead at this point, but both are near the expected baseline for automobiles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle_battery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle_battery
- walshemj 13y ago
  At what amperage and voltage and how much did it cost to upgrade the charging station connection to the grid. And how do you cool the battery during such a fast charge? what % of the energy is lost in heat from the chemical reaction - even Tesla has to obey the laws of thermo dynamics. Thinking about it from a thermofluids angle You could I suppose have a complex system of heat exchangers built in to the the battery pack and hook the car up to a water connection and flush chilled water (or better some non conductive fluid) through whilst charging but water and high voltage and amps are not the best of friends. Now where did i put my steam tables :-)

jredwards 13y ago

He's completely correct. I've never understood the allure of hydrogen fuel cell powered cars. It's just a shittier, less-viable version of a battery.

soperj 13y ago
The allure was that 15 years ago battery technology sucked.

Sagat 13y ago

Obey the Musk!

mongol 13y ago

Is it more bullshit than the hyperloop? This is not an attempt to troll ... but between the two fuel cells seem more realistic. Musk is exaggerating.

ryguytilidie 13y ago
Its not that hydrogen is unrealistic. Hydrogen cars currently exist. The problem is that mass producing hydrogen is just as problematic as mass producing gasoline.

mchannon 13y ago

As an interesting aside, the leading use for hydrogen today, with over 50% of all hydrogen used, is in oil refining. That hydrogen (along with almost all the balance) comes from steam-reformed natural gas. It's also true that more electricity is consumed refining gasoline (without even figuring the oil itself's energy) than in producing hydrogen (per gge). The important distinction is that gasoline is an outstanding motor fuel, able to deliver 3000x the volumetric energy density of hydrogen gas, 6x the volumetric energy density of compressed hydrogen and 3x the volumetric energy density of liquefied hydrogen. Those numbers get even more stark when you add in tank weights. Musk's Youtube video demonstrates a battery changeout faster than a gasoline fillup (BTW, ever filled up a tank with H2? It's not as fast as gasoline per gge; not even close). I share the BS opinion on hydrogen fuel cells. Hydrogen tanks cost too much, weigh too much and better alternatives exist.

ChuckMcM 13y ago

Interesting comment. I really like Elon but I think he's a bit off here. My reasoning is that fuel is fuel. Basically you get the energy out of gasoline through an exothermic reaction with oxygen, you get the energy out of Lithium Phosphate by the electron exchange reactions with the cathode. Fuel cells can be the middle road, liquid fuel into electron exchange through catalysts. The "issue" with fuel cells is that you cannot easily make fuel at home. I get that, if we're one end use energy form (electricity) then we can optimize the infrastructure to carry and deliver that efficiently. But arguments about energy density are silly. There is way more energy in a gallon of gas than you can put into an equal volume or weight of battery. That is why you can use it as a fuel at 20% efficiency and still have a viable business model. So what is 'bullshit' here? Is it that people won't create the infrastructure to make fuel cell friendly fuels? Is it that a parallel fuel structure can't compete with the existing gas distribution infrastructure? So I don't buy the idea that fuel cells as a power mechanism are non-viable but could see and argument that a car eco system based on them is unlikely.

adambom 13y ago

It kind of bothers me when people talk about fuel cell vehicles as being "emissions free". Producing the Hydrogen required to run a fuel cell requires either electrolysis of water, or extracting it from natural gas. That's really energy intensive. Either the emissions come out your tailpipe or go out a smokestack. Pick your poison. There are other interesting fuel cell technologies that use liquids, like methanol, instead of Hydrogen as a fuel source, but even Methanol requires energy to be produced.

elchief 13y ago

Here's Ballard's 10-year stock performance: https://www.google.ca/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1382558400000&chddm=983365&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=TSE:BLD&ntsp=0&ei=CwpoUrmRAoP-qAGJ7AE https://www.google.ca/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&c... Obama cut funding for fuel cell research a few years ago: http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/obama-to-cut-funding-for-hydrogen-fuel-cell-research.html http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/obama-to-...

tocomment 13y ago

Has anyone looked into running the fuel cell in reverse to recharge it? I remember seeing a demo at a fair where it was a sealed fuel cell and it could go from h2 02 to water and then run it in reverse to recreate the o2 and h2. If that's feasible it could simply be a new type of battery, no?