13 ms·

Why fuel cell cars don't work

191 points by skrause 12y ago

VLM 12y ago
Another problem is fundamentally the game you're playing is mass and capex providing a way to turn air and H2 into power. Author is correct that fuel cells suck, but whats even worse is a little hybrid H2 turbine would be lighter, cheaper, higher powered, and in a real world situation, higher natgas well to wheel efficiency. In fact, rather than turning natgas from a well into H2, you'd be better off just burning the natgas in the turbine. Turbines do have some deployment issues such as outputing enough nitrogen oxides to generate a cloud, etc. But in a hybrid system, they're pretty cool. Basically you're taking an electric car and a very small electric company natgas peaking plant and putting it in the trunk with a charger.
Retric 12y ago
On solution to the long distance car storage is simply not to. There are less than 50,000 miles of interstate highways in the US. If we added a 3rd rail or similar system for powering cars as they traveled range and efficiency quickly become a non issue. Granted, the interstate highway system would just be the start eventually you would want to cover just about every road. Not to mention safety concerns etc, but it's a real option.
- aetherson 12y ago
  This is an extraordinary claim and I'd like to see some evidence that it's anything like possible.
  - crimsonalucard 12y ago
    Look up energy efficiency per person in cities like NYC versus Los Angeles. Subways , rail based transportation, and public transportation significantly reduce energy usage per person. The problem is that it's impossible to build these systems in the huge suburban sprawls that make up most of the United states.
    - maxerickson 12y ago
      The OP is talking about building a third rail for cars. And not just on major transit routes, on every transport route.
    - parsnips 12y ago
      So in other words, subways are solutions in search of a problem.
      - krschultz 12y ago
        No, subways are very appropriate in certain situations. It wouldn't make sense to build an 8 lane highway to connect two towns in the backwoods of Alaska, but that doesn't mean 8 lane highways are a solution in search of a problem.
        parsnips 12y ago
        The point was I'm addressing is this idea that "sprawl" is somehow the problem that needs curing. It reminds me of a young child asking: "If people are so poor in ___________ why don't they move to _______?"
        CalRobert 12y ago
        Sprawl is problematic for a number of reasons. Environmental - a great deal of land is taking out of either agricultural usage or natural usage for sprawl. Large amounts of water are used on lawns. Economic - Some people can't afford cars or motorcycles, but cars and motorcycles are the only practical way to get around most sprawling cities and towns Safety - Cars are a dangerous way to get around. They kill half a million people a year. They also make roads even more dangerous for other users, like walkers or people on bicycles. Social - Social isolation from a lack of interaction with neighbours is a large problem, and being spread out makes it harder to see other people. This is particularly true if you're elderly, can't drive, and don't have other ways of making social connections. That's just a few. Not every place needs to be the City of London or Manhattan, but there are smarter ways to make suburbs.
  - Retric 12y ago
    Edit: A direct example of what I am suggesting http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-mode_bus http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-mode_bus I don't see what you think is extraordinary about this. Note the tires on most of these pictures: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybus http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybus Electrified trolies in mixed use roads are old tech. Some already use hybrid battery backup systems so they don't need constant contact with the power supply. For safety overhead wires are often used, but ground level power supplies that are only on under the vehicle are also safe. (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-level_power_supply http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-level_power_supply) Clearly there would be large adoption and scaling issues, but what about this seemed impossible to you? PS: There are also plenty of examples of trains using overhead power at far above highway speeds.
    - aetherson 12y ago
      Things that seem impossible to me: * Having a many lane, many cars overtaking each other system. I don't see mechanically how you'd make a system in which cars could, at 70 mph, go from one rail to another in order to pass. * The distances involved. I don't really know why conventional trains that cover more than a few dozen miles are all energy-on-the-train rather than third-rail, but I know they are. And absent other considerations, I assume there's probably a sound reason for this. * This quote from wikipedia: > However, because third rail systems present electric shock > hazards close to the ground, high voltages (above 1,500 V) > are not considered safe. A very high current must therefore > be used to transfer adequate power, resulting in high > resistive losses, and requiring relatively closely spaced > feed points (electrical substations). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_rail#Benefits_and_disadvantages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_rail#Benefits_and_disadva... * And of course just the overall scale.
      - Retric 12y ago
        I don't see mechanically how you'd make a system in which cars could, at 70 mph, go from one rail to another in order to pass. Look at that ground level system it's designed for mix use in the middle of city traffic. Basically you have a sequence of metal contact plates in the ground to feed power to a passing vehicle. You can even make the plates wider to accommodate less accurate drivers. The trick is there only powered when a designated vehicle crosses over them. This might seem like an issue but we can switch power vary quickly as in it could work at 600 mph not just 60 mph. It's true that it would be unsafe to be under a vehicle, but that's more or less already true. As to passing, I think you would want a minimum 40mile range while not connected to the system so swapping lanes would generally be a minor issue. And there is no coupling / decoupling as it's all touch contact anyway. * The distances involved... There are plenty of long electric runs. At most it's just a factor of traffic levels. Long runs tend to get less traffic so electrifying them is less cost effective. "In 2006, 240,000 km (25% by length) of the world rail network was electrified and 50% of all rail transport was carried by electric traction." 3rd rail systems are just one path, they work well in subways that don't have to worry about people. I don't think an actual 3rd rail would work for cars. But, inductive coupling or 2nd generation ground level system would be safe for people to walk on or even touch and not an eye sore. The downside would be increased cost vs the cheaper wire systems. At to cost and scale. Gas costs more than 10x what electricity costs right now so there is ~368.51 million gallons / day * ~(pre tax 1.5$ per gallon) * .9 = ~1/2 billion per day wasted right now. Just charge 75c/kwh for in road electricity and you can fund rapid expansion while saving drivers money. Remember, just electrifying things for a city wide buss system generally saves money so break even is ~100 trips per day. Add more traffic and the savings would be ridiculously huge.
- crimsonalucard 12y ago
  Unlike Europe, most of the urban infrastructure of the United states centers around the automobile. I'm not referring to roads vs train tracks. I'm referring to density Of the population. Our suburban cul De sacs make most forms of rail based public transportation prohibitely expensive to build. Only in a high density city like nyc would this make sense. To address the problem we need to dramitcally change our cities.
  - rational-future 12y ago
    US is no longer the center of the world. EU and China have comparable industrial capability. Maybe OP's idea will work for them.
  - crimsonalucard 12y ago
    I also want to mention that in NYC and many major metropolitan cities in the world, your proposal has already been implemented. It's called a subway.
  - a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
    > To address the problem we need to dramitcally change our cities. I am continually amazed at the angst it causes many people when you suggest that the current American way of life will have to change. When you say that in 20 years people won't be driving everywhere a lot of folks really freak out. The arithmetic plainly indicates we simply will not all be driving or riding in cars regularly in the future. Hydrogen vs. lithium batteries vs. gasoline doesn't even enter into it. There simply won't be the joules for everyone to get about that way. People will be walking, bicycling, and riding boring old 19th century speed trains. Peak Oil is now-ish and nothing else is set to provide the joules necessary to power personal vehicles on the current scale, regardless of vehicle power plants.
- r00fus 12y ago
  Your numbers [1] are off by 3x - the federal highway administration calculates 164K miles of highway. However, like Tesla's Supercharger idea perhaps a targeted rollout of functionality to connect major centers combined with the existing charging infrastructure would settle the "range anxiety" issues. [1] http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/pubs/hf/pl11028/chapter1.cfm http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/pubs/hf/pl11028/ch...
  - Retric 12y ago
    interstate highway system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System ) != National Highway System. It's specificly the blue lines on "Figure 1-3: National Highway System" from you link. The point is not covering every road it's just a reasonable first goal.
JoeAltmaier 12y ago
Title should be "why Hydrogen fuel cell cars don't work"
r00fus 12y ago
The article deftly steps around the real issue: Fuel Cells are entirely an petroleum industry promotion. The goal is to provide a seemingly credible (but in reality completely unworkable) clean alternative so politicians, car companies and oil companies together can work "towards a clean future" while deep down knowing that it's a stalling tactic to keep the petroleum infrastructure in place. Any fuel cell funding sucks the oxygen from the real threats to the industry: Industrial/Consumer solar and BEV (battery electric vehicles). It's analogous to "clean coal": http://www.coal-is-dirty.com/top-5-clean-coal-myths http://www.coal-is-dirty.com/top-5-clean-coal-myths
- soperj 12y ago
  I really don't understand the whole cars are in league with big oil. What on earth do the car companies have to get out of it? The big name in the 90s, Ballard, had buy in from a couple of car companies and no oil companies.
  - hackuser 12y ago
    > I really don't understand the whole cars are in league with big oil. I'd guess car manufacturers have two economic interests: 1) The less energy for automobiles costs, the more people will use them, and 2) the less economic harm there is from climate change, the more people will use cars. I could see #1 motivating auto manufacturers to support the oil industry, and #2 motivating them to support clean energy.
    - IanCal 12y ago
      > #1 motivating auto manufacturers to support the oil industry Are the energy costs for electric cars higher than those for traditional cars? I thought they were significantly lower.
  - rational-future 12y ago
    The conspiracy hypothesis is that the oil people have long ago acquired controlling interest in the auto corporations. Via foundations, funds, banks, etc.
phkahler 12y ago
The best source of hydrogen comes from the ground. You pump this stuff out - it's long molecules consisting of a carbon backbone covered in hydrogen. You run it through something called a "reformer" to strip the hydrogen off. The reformer could be put on a car, but it'd be more efficient to do it on an industrial scale. Actually wait, if you just use a combustion process you can get energy from both the hydrogen and the carbon! AFAIK there are no other great sources of hydrogen.
- Gravityloss 12y ago
  Excess wind and solar power can be used to generate hydrogen from water.
  - soperj 12y ago
    and Hydro as well.
  - crimsonalucard 12y ago
    There is no excess. Renewables do not have anywhere near the capacity to charge a fuel cell automobile economy. Additionally, if there was capacity why not use it to charge lithium batteries?
    - rhino369 12y ago
      >Additionally, if there was capacity why not use it to charge lithium batteries? Cost, weight, and refueling/recharge. Lithium batteries are expensive, heavy, and have a limited lifespan. I think batteries will win out, but it is not a certainty. Toyota seems to think Fuel cells will win.
    - D_Alex 12y ago
      >There is no excess ...yet. But solar and wind power are becoming the cheapest way to generate electricity. Their naturally variable production will mean that there will be periods of excess power available, and finding a good use for that excess would be nice. But I agree that batteries, not hydrogen, are the way to go.
hansjorg 12y ago
Toyota, which is the largest car manufacturer by volume, have stated repeatedly that they are betting on hydrogen fuel cells rather than batteries. Given their track record with hybrids, one would think that they know their battery technology. None of the anti-hydrogen fuel cell articles that have popped up here lately have mentioned this. It would be interesting to see an analysis of the Toyota strategy from this point of view.
- gambiting 12y ago
  I am really really curious how anyone is trying to solve the problem of Hydrogen leaking out of literally any container you could put it into. Smallest molecule+huge pressure = leaks out of pure lead canisters. When Mercedes made their Hydrogen-powered concept car they said the whole tank would evaporate naturally within 3 weeks if I remember correctly? As hydrogen forms an explosive mixture with air, I cannot see the problem of it leaking into surrounding environment as not being completely critical.
  - derekp7 12y ago
    I thought the solution was to have an insulated tank and a refrigeration solution to keep the hydrogen liquid. Of course you will still have "leakage", as some of the hydrogen needs to be spent periodically to run the refrigeration, but this can be minimized with enough insulation.
    - nabla9 12y ago
      30% of the heating value of hydrogen is wasted for liquefaction.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - shazzy 12y ago
    I remember reading about how researchers were trying to store hydrogen in what are (essentially) nano-scale plastic beads. http://www.theengineer.co.uk/news/nanobeads-could-store-liquid-hydrogen-to-fuel-cars/1007213.article http://www.theengineer.co.uk/news/nanobeads-could-store-liqu...
ars 12y ago
Hydrogen is a complete dead end. It's too hard to make, ship, store, or use. But methane is not. Can fuel cells work with methane? I think so, and if they don't work well, then that's where the research should be directed.
- Brakenshire 12y ago
  As far as I understand the alternative candidate is Methanol, which can be produced from Hydrogen, which has a relatively high energy density, is liquid at room temperature, and works well with fuel cells. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_economy
Htsthbjig 12y ago
I believe fuel cells will work when they can use methane, butane or propane cheaply. I already use an NGV(natural gas) car. Using fuel cells means you can get 60%-70% efficiency instead of 40% of thermal engines because you don't have Carnot't limit. Also, with natural gas lots of people will be able to charge on their home. Lots of people have natural gas pipelines in their houses in Europe. Today you can use this fuels only on fixed places, but over time we will be able to use it on cars. But I don't believe this will happen soon. And when it happens it will probably use at least a small battery for getting the benefits of it:regenerative braking and instant responsiveness.
- mhurron 12y ago
  Isn't using any hydrocarbon going to give you the issue with pollution that gasoline does? You're not really solving any problems simply changing what hydrocarbon you choose to burn.
  - korethr 12y ago
    IMO, that would depend on the form the waste carbon is produced in, which would influence how it is disposed of. Taking a common hydrocarbon such as propane, and stripping all the hydrogens out of it will produce pure carbon. Last I checked, carbon tends to be a solid at standard pressure and temperature. AFAICT, the concern about carbon pollution is it ending up in the atmosphere in the form of gaseous compounds and messing with the complex feedback loops that regulate the climate. Solid carbon isn't going to do that very well.
  - Htsthbjig 12y ago
    "Isn't using any hydrocarbon going to give you the issue with pollution that gasoline does" Not really. A fuel cell converts an hydrocarbon to C02. That's it. A thermal engine like a diesel creates particles like this: http://www.epa.gov/region1/eco/airtox/diesel.html http://www.epa.gov/region1/eco/airtox/diesel.html And the high temperatures creates nitrogen oxides that create acid rain. When you start a car, the catalyst converter needs 5 to 10 minutes to get enough temperature for starting to work.
  - 12y ago
Shivetya 12y ago
Get back to me when a practical, affordable, and go over 300 mile on a charge, battery powered car is here. Currently batteries are not a practical replacement. Currently if you want to hit near 300, you don't quite get there, your in the eighty thousand plus range if that low after common options for your only real choice. Home charging is still a four hour plus affair with the best chargers. Odd he claims that a hundred mile range isn't available using "safe tanks" when the Honda Clarity has been around six years and does twice that. Manufacturers seem to be betting on fuel cells because they have many other uses other than cars. They also will have a weight advantage over battery powered cars
- thrownaway2424 12y ago
  Nearly all car trips are way under 300 miles. I believe the P95 trip distance (in the USA) is 30 miles each way. Most people can use an affordable pure-electric car such as the Leaf, e-Golf, or Fiat 500e for most trips. From a system optimization perspective, it's OK if some people (like you) always need the range of an internal combustion engine and everyone else switches to electric.
  - bobbles 12y ago
    yeah 90% of my trips might be short, but i'm not going to go and rent a separate car when I do need a long trip
    - sandstrom 12y ago
      That's a valid point. But perhaps you'd be willing to paus for ~20 minutes every 3 hours or so? (especially if you make long trips infrequently)
      - bobbles 12y ago
        Yeah, adequate infrastructure at all the 'break' points would essentially solve the problem as people should be taking those 3 hour breaks anyway
    - 12y ago
jessaustin 12y ago
The picture of their race-car surprised me. The driver's seat is right next to, and seemingly unshielded from, a stack of 36 "very large ultracapacitors". Are these less likely to explode than other capacitors? Sure they might have electronics designed to keep them within safe operating margins, but for safety I'd trust distance and enclosure more than custom electronics.
- demultiplexer 12y ago
  It's a... student project ;) However, the actual amount of energy in those ultracaps isn't that much. We're talking a couple tens of kWs or, in other words, all those caps together don't even hold the same energy as one single li-ion cell (18650 size). The energy density is low, thus, the actual safety issue is fairly minor. That being said, they are in a special Nylon enclosure with polycarbonate sides which provides an effective shield in the case of rupture. But, at the moment that picture was shot we hadn't actually tested that yet :D Again, students.
mstachowiak 12y ago
For those curious to hear Elon's stance (as an electric car maker with a large bet on lithium ion batteries, he's obviously biased): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_e7rA4fBAo&t=10m8s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_e7rA4fBAo&t=10m8s
- embro 12y ago
  At least he can back up his claims with science.
  - mstachowiak 12y ago
    Agreed. I think his arguments are very sound and rational.
luchs 12y ago
There are actually two buses in operation at my university which run on fuel cells: http://www.kit.edu/downloads/Flyer_Wasserstoffbus_EN.pdf http://www.kit.edu/downloads/Flyer_Wasserstoffbus_EN.pdf They have been in operation since 2013, so they seem to work pretty well.
- shazzy 12y ago
  TFL (Transport for London) have been running hydrogen buses on a route in London since 2011. According to the link they have 8 in total and the entire route is operated with hydrogen buses. http://www.hydrogenlondon.org/projects/london-hydrogen-bus-project/ http://www.hydrogenlondon.org/projects/london-hydrogen-bus-p...
  - thrownaway2424 12y ago
    AC Transit also operates 12 hydrogen fuel cell buses. http://www.actransit.org/environment/the-hyroad/ http://www.actransit.org/environment/the-hyroad/
- sandstrom 12y ago
  Here is an example of electric busses (eight or so in use in Stockholm): http://www.volvogroup.com/group/global/en-gb/newsmedia/_layouts/CWP.Internet.VolvoCom/NewsItem.aspx?News.ItemId=148197&News.Language=en-gb http://www.volvogroup.com/group/global/en-gb/newsmedia/_layo...
smegel 12y ago
Why "hydrogen" fuel cell cars don't work. Quite the misleading title.
- demultiplexer 12y ago
  (author here): this is part 1. I will go into other types of fuel cells in a future part. Hydrogen is the focus of the first two parts just because this is the most mature technology and has actually been used in a couple of (kinda..) production cars.
sandworm 12y ago
The threat to the car companies is that all-electric cars could dramatically decrease demand. They hope the complexity of fuel cells will keep demand going a few more decades. An all-electric car could have as few as a hundred moving parts. A few motors and connecting rods, some suspension componants, fans and a couple manual controls. You just don't need the thousands of tiny metal bits necessary to keep a gas/diesel engine ticking over. Better yet, those parts you do need can be generic. Electric motors are nothing special, nor are batteries. Since they do not mechanically interact they don't need to be as engine/vehicle specific as parts today. Once EVs become the norm, and the teething problems of EVs are worked out, aftermarket replacements will be everywhere. Build a car from non-rusting carbon fiber, fill it with easily replaceable generic parts, and you've got a recipe for vehicles lasting decades. THAT's what the car companies really fear.
- astrocat 12y ago
  I doubt this is the case. If anything, the reasons you give boil down to: "the core of the car - the moving vehicle bit - will become commodity" and when this happens, cars will become "cars" like phones are now "phones," as in, they're not so much phones anymore as tiny computers that can also make calls. And this will definitely NOT increase their lifetime. If anything, it will decrease it... just like we replace our phones every 2 years.
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    You know how you swap the powertrain on a Model S? You pull the motor (~70 lbs) and you drop the battery pack. 10 minutes tops. Sure, you could argue the interior will wear. Big deal. You'll have interiors you can swap on the power sled (battery + suspension + electric motor). Those sleds should last forever.
    - cma 12y ago
      Why did you list the lbs for the motor and not the battery pack? =P
zwiteof 12y ago
I'm surprised he didn't mention the volumetric efficiency of compressed hydrogen compared to gasoline when comparing the specific energy density of the two fuels. Yes, you have more than 3x the energy per unit mass, but you have more than 5.5x less energy per unit volume. So instead of a simple 12 gallon gas tank, you need a 66+ gallon pressure vessel adding plenty of weight and taking up volume that would otherwise be useful for cargo or other purposes.
- addicted44 12y ago
  It's the first part in a series of articles. I'm sure he will mention this, especially considering he hints at the densoty issues right at the beginning.
jgamman 12y ago
ex-FC researcher here. pretty much gets it. some other context: it's hydrogen for cars because of the chemistry ie, start-up, shut-down and response times. most FC claims are more of a 'displaced emmissions' scheme than zero-emmissions (unless you're in say, NZ where we have @#$# loads of renewables on our grid). PEM fuel cells are limited to 100 dC due to the hydrogen ion transport via liquid water - that's a problem. at this temp you need exotic metals like Platinum to crack the molecules open for rxn - that's a problem, especially if you're into ethical mining/sourcing. FC cars will need to operate like whiteware or, well cars do now but literally be a small chemical plant. storing hydrogen isn't as easy as people think, it can really screw up 'normal' metals (lone protons are very tricky little @##@s to keep track of). having said all that, FC are fascinating from a tech perspective but IMHO, reasonably sized, high temperature FCs working in highly deregulated markets are about the only place they'll work at all and even then, there's a lot of competition with faster technology iteration rates. i've been reading the same articles since the early-90s - FC car tech is always about 10 years away.
- demultiplexer 12y ago
  (writer of the blog post here) Interesting, can you divulge a bit more about where and when you did FC research? Was it academic or for a manufacturer? You are absolutely right; PEM FCs - and I glossed over this in the blog post, might want to readdress it in a future part - are the only portable-enough technology for fuel cells and they inherently come with this ion transport problem and by extension cooling problem that is just unsolvable. Which is essentially the root cause of the complexity of an FCV. Anyway, I feel your jadedness. Until I actually worked with fuel cells, I had absolutely no idea. Nobody had adequately conveyed to me how these things work and what goes into actually building FCVs. Things finally started to click in my head when we had an electric kart on batteries done within days after completing the frame, yet it took many months until the fuel cell worked. And this was a pretty ready-to-go fuel cell in most respects (Hydrogenics HyPM8). I was too young back then to appreciate how long FC tech has been 'just around the corner' in the media. Now I understand. I built an FCV 7 1/2 years ago! And they're still pretty much at the same point. I wish things were different because I love the tech, but nature wins this time.
nickbauman 12y ago
I thought fuel cells were debunked 10 years ago? The sad part is that power distribution and storage for wind isn't keeping up. Here in Minnesota, Buffalo Ridge Power (BR is one of the windiest places in the nation), many of the multi-megawatt turbines are forced to idle down because there's no place for the power to go. A logical place to put this power is in fuel cells.
cpprototypes 12y ago
Most discussions of FC and BEV miss the most important factor that will determine which one succeeds in the marketplace. Comparing engine efficiency, pollution, none of that matters compared to this single factor. And that factor is infrastructure. BEV supporters often assume that everyone lives in a nice suburban home with a garage. But the reality is far from this. Millions live in apartments/condos with parking structures that contain hundreds or even thousands of cars. And there may be a trend of the younger generations favoring denser urban living instead of the suburban living of past generations. Installing a few charging ports in a parking structure that has hundreds of parking spots is not a realistic solution. Will the owners of apartments and condos be willing to install hundreds of electric plugs into parking structures? I think the answer is either no, or they would do it too slowly to determine the FC vs BEV fight. So for the millions in this situation, there are only these options for the future. BEV battery swapping stations vs Hydrogen stations. Supercharger is too slow compared to hydrogen filling. Only battery swapping is comparable. Which infrastructure is built more quickly will determine if FC or BEV wins. Energy efficiency, pollution, none of that matters compared to this.
- lotu 12y ago
  Why would presume that owners would not want to install electric car chargers in their garages if there was demand for it? Presumably in such a situation you would be expected to pay for the electricity in the same way you pay for your gas, so installing chargers would actually make money. The building owners would have to hate money to not want to install electric car chargers in their buildings. Also, for many urban dwellers the choice is academic because they choose to not own a car at all. Instead using car sharing services these services would have no problem ensuring that their cars get charging ports.
  - thrownaway2424 12y ago
    These things aren't free. An apartment with a parking garage space with an electric car charger will certainly cost more than one without a charger, and WAY more than one without the parking space at all. If this doesn't translate directly into higher rents then the building owners won't want to do it. Making sure a shared car is charged sounds like a nightmare. The whole point of car sharing is the cars get more use and spend less time parked. Considering how long it takes to charge some of these rigs, I'm surprised that the sharing companies have adopted them. My car share offers three models of battery-electric vehicle, one of them is the ridiculous Scion that only goes 35 miles between charges. Personally I don't understand how the economics works on that.
ams6110 12y ago
There are fuel cells that don't require pure hydrogen, they can use light hydrocarbons such as methane or alcohol both of which have a much more mature distribution infrastructure in place.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
tarikjn 12y ago
Refilling and storage issues are being worked on by using ethanol instead of H2 (look up Direct Alcohol Fuel Cell). It is considered better than methanol due to a much lower toxicity and higher energy density but the tech is just not there yet. This is considered to be the future for medium size batteries (small vehicles, hand machinery etc.). Beyond that, what is wrong with green crude-derived fuels (gasoline, diesel, jet fuel) as a medium of energy storage? It is being produced right now in small quantities after refining green crude made from algae grown into water/sunlight (carbon neutral form). Some advantages: * doesn't compete with arable land like corn ethanol * can be grown in salt water * no oxygen atoms to oxide your tank/engine * much less sulfurs or combustion by-products than fossil-crude refined fuels * can be refined using existing infrastructure * can be distributed using existing infrastructure * can be used in existing vehicles and machinery * recycling combustion engines is much less energy-intensive than batteries

191 points by skrause 12y ago

VLM 12y ago

Another problem is fundamentally the game you're playing is mass and capex providing a way to turn air and H2 into power. Author is correct that fuel cells suck, but whats even worse is a little hybrid H2 turbine would be lighter, cheaper, higher powered, and in a real world situation, higher natgas well to wheel efficiency. In fact, rather than turning natgas from a well into H2, you'd be better off just burning the natgas in the turbine. Turbines do have some deployment issues such as outputing enough nitrogen oxides to generate a cloud, etc. But in a hybrid system, they're pretty cool. Basically you're taking an electric car and a very small electric company natgas peaking plant and putting it in the trunk with a charger.

Retric 12y ago

On solution to the long distance car storage is simply not to. There are less than 50,000 miles of interstate highways in the US. If we added a 3rd rail or similar system for powering cars as they traveled range and efficiency quickly become a non issue. Granted, the interstate highway system would just be the start eventually you would want to cover just about every road. Not to mention safety concerns etc, but it's a real option.

aetherson 12y ago
This is an extraordinary claim and I'd like to see some evidence that it's anything like possible.
- crimsonalucard 12y ago
  Look up energy efficiency per person in cities like NYC versus Los Angeles. Subways , rail based transportation, and public transportation significantly reduce energy usage per person. The problem is that it's impossible to build these systems in the huge suburban sprawls that make up most of the United states.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    The OP is talking about building a third rail for cars. And not just on major transit routes, on every transport route.
  - parsnips 12y ago
    So in other words, subways are solutions in search of a problem.
    - krschultz 12y ago
      No, subways are very appropriate in certain situations. It wouldn't make sense to build an 8 lane highway to connect two towns in the backwoods of Alaska, but that doesn't mean 8 lane highways are a solution in search of a problem.
      - parsnips 12y ago
        The point was I'm addressing is this idea that "sprawl" is somehow the problem that needs curing. It reminds me of a young child asking: "If people are so poor in ___________ why don't they move to _______?"
        CalRobert 12y ago
        Sprawl is problematic for a number of reasons. Environmental - a great deal of land is taking out of either agricultural usage or natural usage for sprawl. Large amounts of water are used on lawns. Economic - Some people can't afford cars or motorcycles, but cars and motorcycles are the only practical way to get around most sprawling cities and towns Safety - Cars are a dangerous way to get around. They kill half a million people a year. They also make roads even more dangerous for other users, like walkers or people on bicycles. Social - Social isolation from a lack of interaction with neighbours is a large problem, and being spread out makes it harder to see other people. This is particularly true if you're elderly, can't drive, and don't have other ways of making social connections. That's just a few. Not every place needs to be the City of London or Manhattan, but there are smarter ways to make suburbs.
- Retric 12y ago
  Edit: A direct example of what I am suggesting http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-mode_bus http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-mode_bus I don't see what you think is extraordinary about this. Note the tires on most of these pictures: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybus http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybus Electrified trolies in mixed use roads are old tech. Some already use hybrid battery backup systems so they don't need constant contact with the power supply. For safety overhead wires are often used, but ground level power supplies that are only on under the vehicle are also safe. (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-level_power_supply http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-level_power_supply) Clearly there would be large adoption and scaling issues, but what about this seemed impossible to you? PS: There are also plenty of examples of trains using overhead power at far above highway speeds.
  - aetherson 12y ago
    Things that seem impossible to me: * Having a many lane, many cars overtaking each other system. I don't see mechanically how you'd make a system in which cars could, at 70 mph, go from one rail to another in order to pass. * The distances involved. I don't really know why conventional trains that cover more than a few dozen miles are all energy-on-the-train rather than third-rail, but I know they are. And absent other considerations, I assume there's probably a sound reason for this. * This quote from wikipedia: > However, because third rail systems present electric shock > hazards close to the ground, high voltages (above 1,500 V) > are not considered safe. A very high current must therefore > be used to transfer adequate power, resulting in high > resistive losses, and requiring relatively closely spaced > feed points (electrical substations). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_rail#Benefits_and_disadvantages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_rail#Benefits_and_disadva... * And of course just the overall scale.
    - Retric 12y ago
      I don't see mechanically how you'd make a system in which cars could, at 70 mph, go from one rail to another in order to pass. Look at that ground level system it's designed for mix use in the middle of city traffic. Basically you have a sequence of metal contact plates in the ground to feed power to a passing vehicle. You can even make the plates wider to accommodate less accurate drivers. The trick is there only powered when a designated vehicle crosses over them. This might seem like an issue but we can switch power vary quickly as in it could work at 600 mph not just 60 mph. It's true that it would be unsafe to be under a vehicle, but that's more or less already true. As to passing, I think you would want a minimum 40mile range while not connected to the system so swapping lanes would generally be a minor issue. And there is no coupling / decoupling as it's all touch contact anyway. * The distances involved... There are plenty of long electric runs. At most it's just a factor of traffic levels. Long runs tend to get less traffic so electrifying them is less cost effective. "In 2006, 240,000 km (25% by length) of the world rail network was electrified and 50% of all rail transport was carried by electric traction." 3rd rail systems are just one path, they work well in subways that don't have to worry about people. I don't think an actual 3rd rail would work for cars. But, inductive coupling or 2nd generation ground level system would be safe for people to walk on or even touch and not an eye sore. The downside would be increased cost vs the cheaper wire systems. At to cost and scale. Gas costs more than 10x what electricity costs right now so there is ~368.51 million gallons / day * ~(pre tax 1.5$ per gallon) * .9 = ~1/2 billion per day wasted right now. Just charge 75c/kwh for in road electricity and you can fund rapid expansion while saving drivers money. Remember, just electrifying things for a city wide buss system generally saves money so break even is ~100 trips per day. Add more traffic and the savings would be ridiculously huge.
crimsonalucard 12y ago
Unlike Europe, most of the urban infrastructure of the United states centers around the automobile. I'm not referring to roads vs train tracks. I'm referring to density Of the population. Our suburban cul De sacs make most forms of rail based public transportation prohibitely expensive to build. Only in a high density city like nyc would this make sense. To address the problem we need to dramitcally change our cities.
- rational-future 12y ago
  US is no longer the center of the world. EU and China have comparable industrial capability. Maybe OP's idea will work for them.
- crimsonalucard 12y ago
  I also want to mention that in NYC and many major metropolitan cities in the world, your proposal has already been implemented. It's called a subway.
- a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
  > To address the problem we need to dramitcally change our cities. I am continually amazed at the angst it causes many people when you suggest that the current American way of life will have to change. When you say that in 20 years people won't be driving everywhere a lot of folks really freak out. The arithmetic plainly indicates we simply will not all be driving or riding in cars regularly in the future. Hydrogen vs. lithium batteries vs. gasoline doesn't even enter into it. There simply won't be the joules for everyone to get about that way. People will be walking, bicycling, and riding boring old 19th century speed trains. Peak Oil is now-ish and nothing else is set to provide the joules necessary to power personal vehicles on the current scale, regardless of vehicle power plants.
r00fus 12y ago
Your numbers [1] are off by 3x - the federal highway administration calculates 164K miles of highway. However, like Tesla's Supercharger idea perhaps a targeted rollout of functionality to connect major centers combined with the existing charging infrastructure would settle the "range anxiety" issues. [1] http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/pubs/hf/pl11028/chapter1.cfm http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/pubs/hf/pl11028/ch...
- Retric 12y ago
  interstate highway system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System ) != National Highway System. It's specificly the blue lines on "Figure 1-3: National Highway System" from you link. The point is not covering every road it's just a reasonable first goal.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago

Title should be "why Hydrogen fuel cell cars don't work"

r00fus 12y ago

The article deftly steps around the real issue: Fuel Cells are entirely an petroleum industry promotion. The goal is to provide a seemingly credible (but in reality completely unworkable) clean alternative so politicians, car companies and oil companies together can work "towards a clean future" while deep down knowing that it's a stalling tactic to keep the petroleum infrastructure in place. Any fuel cell funding sucks the oxygen from the real threats to the industry: Industrial/Consumer solar and BEV (battery electric vehicles). It's analogous to "clean coal": http://www.coal-is-dirty.com/top-5-clean-coal-myths http://www.coal-is-dirty.com/top-5-clean-coal-myths

soperj 12y ago
I really don't understand the whole cars are in league with big oil. What on earth do the car companies have to get out of it? The big name in the 90s, Ballard, had buy in from a couple of car companies and no oil companies.
- hackuser 12y ago
  > I really don't understand the whole cars are in league with big oil. I'd guess car manufacturers have two economic interests: 1) The less energy for automobiles costs, the more people will use them, and 2) the less economic harm there is from climate change, the more people will use cars. I could see #1 motivating auto manufacturers to support the oil industry, and #2 motivating them to support clean energy.
  - IanCal 12y ago
    > #1 motivating auto manufacturers to support the oil industry Are the energy costs for electric cars higher than those for traditional cars? I thought they were significantly lower.
- rational-future 12y ago
  The conspiracy hypothesis is that the oil people have long ago acquired controlling interest in the auto corporations. Via foundations, funds, banks, etc.

phkahler 12y ago

The best source of hydrogen comes from the ground. You pump this stuff out - it's long molecules consisting of a carbon backbone covered in hydrogen. You run it through something called a "reformer" to strip the hydrogen off. The reformer could be put on a car, but it'd be more efficient to do it on an industrial scale. Actually wait, if you just use a combustion process you can get energy from both the hydrogen and the carbon! AFAIK there are no other great sources of hydrogen.

Gravityloss 12y ago
Excess wind and solar power can be used to generate hydrogen from water.
- soperj 12y ago
  and Hydro as well.
- crimsonalucard 12y ago
  There is no excess. Renewables do not have anywhere near the capacity to charge a fuel cell automobile economy. Additionally, if there was capacity why not use it to charge lithium batteries?
  - rhino369 12y ago
    >Additionally, if there was capacity why not use it to charge lithium batteries? Cost, weight, and refueling/recharge. Lithium batteries are expensive, heavy, and have a limited lifespan. I think batteries will win out, but it is not a certainty. Toyota seems to think Fuel cells will win.
  - D_Alex 12y ago
    >There is no excess ...yet. But solar and wind power are becoming the cheapest way to generate electricity. Their naturally variable production will mean that there will be periods of excess power available, and finding a good use for that excess would be nice. But I agree that batteries, not hydrogen, are the way to go.

hansjorg 12y ago

Toyota, which is the largest car manufacturer by volume, have stated repeatedly that they are betting on hydrogen fuel cells rather than batteries. Given their track record with hybrids, one would think that they know their battery technology. None of the anti-hydrogen fuel cell articles that have popped up here lately have mentioned this. It would be interesting to see an analysis of the Toyota strategy from this point of view.

gambiting 12y ago
I am really really curious how anyone is trying to solve the problem of Hydrogen leaking out of literally any container you could put it into. Smallest molecule+huge pressure = leaks out of pure lead canisters. When Mercedes made their Hydrogen-powered concept car they said the whole tank would evaporate naturally within 3 weeks if I remember correctly? As hydrogen forms an explosive mixture with air, I cannot see the problem of it leaking into surrounding environment as not being completely critical.
- derekp7 12y ago
  I thought the solution was to have an insulated tank and a refrigeration solution to keep the hydrogen liquid. Of course you will still have "leakage", as some of the hydrogen needs to be spent periodically to run the refrigeration, but this can be minimized with enough insulation.
  - nabla9 12y ago
    30% of the heating value of hydrogen is wasted for liquefaction.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- shazzy 12y ago
  I remember reading about how researchers were trying to store hydrogen in what are (essentially) nano-scale plastic beads. http://www.theengineer.co.uk/news/nanobeads-could-store-liquid-hydrogen-to-fuel-cars/1007213.article http://www.theengineer.co.uk/news/nanobeads-could-store-liqu...

ars 12y ago

Hydrogen is a complete dead end. It's too hard to make, ship, store, or use. But methane is not. Can fuel cells work with methane? I think so, and if they don't work well, then that's where the research should be directed.

Brakenshire 12y ago
As far as I understand the alternative candidate is Methanol, which can be produced from Hydrogen, which has a relatively high energy density, is liquid at room temperature, and works well with fuel cells. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_economy

Htsthbjig 12y ago

I believe fuel cells will work when they can use methane, butane or propane cheaply. I already use an NGV(natural gas) car. Using fuel cells means you can get 60%-70% efficiency instead of 40% of thermal engines because you don't have Carnot't limit. Also, with natural gas lots of people will be able to charge on their home. Lots of people have natural gas pipelines in their houses in Europe. Today you can use this fuels only on fixed places, but over time we will be able to use it on cars. But I don't believe this will happen soon. And when it happens it will probably use at least a small battery for getting the benefits of it:regenerative braking and instant responsiveness.

mhurron 12y ago
Isn't using any hydrocarbon going to give you the issue with pollution that gasoline does? You're not really solving any problems simply changing what hydrocarbon you choose to burn.
- korethr 12y ago
  IMO, that would depend on the form the waste carbon is produced in, which would influence how it is disposed of. Taking a common hydrocarbon such as propane, and stripping all the hydrogens out of it will produce pure carbon. Last I checked, carbon tends to be a solid at standard pressure and temperature. AFAICT, the concern about carbon pollution is it ending up in the atmosphere in the form of gaseous compounds and messing with the complex feedback loops that regulate the climate. Solid carbon isn't going to do that very well.
- Htsthbjig 12y ago
  "Isn't using any hydrocarbon going to give you the issue with pollution that gasoline does" Not really. A fuel cell converts an hydrocarbon to C02. That's it. A thermal engine like a diesel creates particles like this: http://www.epa.gov/region1/eco/airtox/diesel.html http://www.epa.gov/region1/eco/airtox/diesel.html And the high temperatures creates nitrogen oxides that create acid rain. When you start a car, the catalyst converter needs 5 to 10 minutes to get enough temperature for starting to work.
- 12y ago

Shivetya 12y ago

Get back to me when a practical, affordable, and go over 300 mile on a charge, battery powered car is here. Currently batteries are not a practical replacement. Currently if you want to hit near 300, you don't quite get there, your in the eighty thousand plus range if that low after common options for your only real choice. Home charging is still a four hour plus affair with the best chargers. Odd he claims that a hundred mile range isn't available using "safe tanks" when the Honda Clarity has been around six years and does twice that. Manufacturers seem to be betting on fuel cells because they have many other uses other than cars. They also will have a weight advantage over battery powered cars

thrownaway2424 12y ago
Nearly all car trips are way under 300 miles. I believe the P95 trip distance (in the USA) is 30 miles each way. Most people can use an affordable pure-electric car such as the Leaf, e-Golf, or Fiat 500e for most trips. From a system optimization perspective, it's OK if some people (like you) always need the range of an internal combustion engine and everyone else switches to electric.
- bobbles 12y ago
  yeah 90% of my trips might be short, but i'm not going to go and rent a separate car when I do need a long trip
  - sandstrom 12y ago
    That's a valid point. But perhaps you'd be willing to paus for ~20 minutes every 3 hours or so? (especially if you make long trips infrequently)
    - bobbles 12y ago
      Yeah, adequate infrastructure at all the 'break' points would essentially solve the problem as people should be taking those 3 hour breaks anyway
  - 12y ago

jessaustin 12y ago

The picture of their race-car surprised me. The driver's seat is right next to, and seemingly unshielded from, a stack of 36 "very large ultracapacitors". Are these less likely to explode than other capacitors? Sure they might have electronics designed to keep them within safe operating margins, but for safety I'd trust distance and enclosure more than custom electronics.

demultiplexer 12y ago
It's a... student project ;) However, the actual amount of energy in those ultracaps isn't that much. We're talking a couple tens of kWs or, in other words, all those caps together don't even hold the same energy as one single li-ion cell (18650 size). The energy density is low, thus, the actual safety issue is fairly minor. That being said, they are in a special Nylon enclosure with polycarbonate sides which provides an effective shield in the case of rupture. But, at the moment that picture was shot we hadn't actually tested that yet :D Again, students.

mstachowiak 12y ago

For those curious to hear Elon's stance (as an electric car maker with a large bet on lithium ion batteries, he's obviously biased): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_e7rA4fBAo&t=10m8s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_e7rA4fBAo&t=10m8s

embro 12y ago
At least he can back up his claims with science.
- mstachowiak 12y ago
  Agreed. I think his arguments are very sound and rational.

luchs 12y ago

There are actually two buses in operation at my university which run on fuel cells: http://www.kit.edu/downloads/Flyer_Wasserstoffbus_EN.pdf http://www.kit.edu/downloads/Flyer_Wasserstoffbus_EN.pdf They have been in operation since 2013, so they seem to work pretty well.

shazzy 12y ago
TFL (Transport for London) have been running hydrogen buses on a route in London since 2011. According to the link they have 8 in total and the entire route is operated with hydrogen buses. http://www.hydrogenlondon.org/projects/london-hydrogen-bus-project/ http://www.hydrogenlondon.org/projects/london-hydrogen-bus-p...
- thrownaway2424 12y ago
  AC Transit also operates 12 hydrogen fuel cell buses. http://www.actransit.org/environment/the-hyroad/ http://www.actransit.org/environment/the-hyroad/
sandstrom 12y ago
Here is an example of electric busses (eight or so in use in Stockholm): http://www.volvogroup.com/group/global/en-gb/newsmedia/_layouts/CWP.Internet.VolvoCom/NewsItem.aspx?News.ItemId=148197&News.Language=en-gb http://www.volvogroup.com/group/global/en-gb/newsmedia/_layo...

smegel 12y ago

Why "hydrogen" fuel cell cars don't work. Quite the misleading title.

demultiplexer 12y ago
(author here): this is part 1. I will go into other types of fuel cells in a future part. Hydrogen is the focus of the first two parts just because this is the most mature technology and has actually been used in a couple of (kinda..) production cars.

sandworm 12y ago

The threat to the car companies is that all-electric cars could dramatically decrease demand. They hope the complexity of fuel cells will keep demand going a few more decades. An all-electric car could have as few as a hundred moving parts. A few motors and connecting rods, some suspension componants, fans and a couple manual controls. You just don't need the thousands of tiny metal bits necessary to keep a gas/diesel engine ticking over. Better yet, those parts you do need can be generic. Electric motors are nothing special, nor are batteries. Since they do not mechanically interact they don't need to be as engine/vehicle specific as parts today. Once EVs become the norm, and the teething problems of EVs are worked out, aftermarket replacements will be everywhere. Build a car from non-rusting carbon fiber, fill it with easily replaceable generic parts, and you've got a recipe for vehicles lasting decades. THAT's what the car companies really fear.

astrocat 12y ago
I doubt this is the case. If anything, the reasons you give boil down to: "the core of the car - the moving vehicle bit - will become commodity" and when this happens, cars will become "cars" like phones are now "phones," as in, they're not so much phones anymore as tiny computers that can also make calls. And this will definitely NOT increase their lifetime. If anything, it will decrease it... just like we replace our phones every 2 years.
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  You know how you swap the powertrain on a Model S? You pull the motor (~70 lbs) and you drop the battery pack. 10 minutes tops. Sure, you could argue the interior will wear. Big deal. You'll have interiors you can swap on the power sled (battery + suspension + electric motor). Those sleds should last forever.
  - cma 12y ago
    Why did you list the lbs for the motor and not the battery pack? =P

zwiteof 12y ago

I'm surprised he didn't mention the volumetric efficiency of compressed hydrogen compared to gasoline when comparing the specific energy density of the two fuels. Yes, you have more than 3x the energy per unit mass, but you have more than 5.5x less energy per unit volume. So instead of a simple 12 gallon gas tank, you need a 66+ gallon pressure vessel adding plenty of weight and taking up volume that would otherwise be useful for cargo or other purposes.

addicted44 12y ago
It's the first part in a series of articles. I'm sure he will mention this, especially considering he hints at the densoty issues right at the beginning.

jgamman 12y ago

ex-FC researcher here. pretty much gets it. some other context: it's hydrogen for cars because of the chemistry ie, start-up, shut-down and response times. most FC claims are more of a 'displaced emmissions' scheme than zero-emmissions (unless you're in say, NZ where we have @#$# loads of renewables on our grid). PEM fuel cells are limited to 100 dC due to the hydrogen ion transport via liquid water - that's a problem. at this temp you need exotic metals like Platinum to crack the molecules open for rxn - that's a problem, especially if you're into ethical mining/sourcing. FC cars will need to operate like whiteware or, well cars do now but literally be a small chemical plant. storing hydrogen isn't as easy as people think, it can really screw up 'normal' metals (lone protons are very tricky little @##@s to keep track of). having said all that, FC are fascinating from a tech perspective but IMHO, reasonably sized, high temperature FCs working in highly deregulated markets are about the only place they'll work at all and even then, there's a lot of competition with faster technology iteration rates. i've been reading the same articles since the early-90s - FC car tech is always about 10 years away.

demultiplexer 12y ago
(writer of the blog post here) Interesting, can you divulge a bit more about where and when you did FC research? Was it academic or for a manufacturer? You are absolutely right; PEM FCs - and I glossed over this in the blog post, might want to readdress it in a future part - are the only portable-enough technology for fuel cells and they inherently come with this ion transport problem and by extension cooling problem that is just unsolvable. Which is essentially the root cause of the complexity of an FCV. Anyway, I feel your jadedness. Until I actually worked with fuel cells, I had absolutely no idea. Nobody had adequately conveyed to me how these things work and what goes into actually building FCVs. Things finally started to click in my head when we had an electric kart on batteries done within days after completing the frame, yet it took many months until the fuel cell worked. And this was a pretty ready-to-go fuel cell in most respects (Hydrogenics HyPM8). I was too young back then to appreciate how long FC tech has been 'just around the corner' in the media. Now I understand. I built an FCV 7 1/2 years ago! And they're still pretty much at the same point. I wish things were different because I love the tech, but nature wins this time.

nickbauman 12y ago

I thought fuel cells were debunked 10 years ago? The sad part is that power distribution and storage for wind isn't keeping up. Here in Minnesota, Buffalo Ridge Power (BR is one of the windiest places in the nation), many of the multi-megawatt turbines are forced to idle down because there's no place for the power to go. A logical place to put this power is in fuel cells.

cpprototypes 12y ago

Most discussions of FC and BEV miss the most important factor that will determine which one succeeds in the marketplace. Comparing engine efficiency, pollution, none of that matters compared to this single factor. And that factor is infrastructure. BEV supporters often assume that everyone lives in a nice suburban home with a garage. But the reality is far from this. Millions live in apartments/condos with parking structures that contain hundreds or even thousands of cars. And there may be a trend of the younger generations favoring denser urban living instead of the suburban living of past generations. Installing a few charging ports in a parking structure that has hundreds of parking spots is not a realistic solution. Will the owners of apartments and condos be willing to install hundreds of electric plugs into parking structures? I think the answer is either no, or they would do it too slowly to determine the FC vs BEV fight. So for the millions in this situation, there are only these options for the future. BEV battery swapping stations vs Hydrogen stations. Supercharger is too slow compared to hydrogen filling. Only battery swapping is comparable. Which infrastructure is built more quickly will determine if FC or BEV wins. Energy efficiency, pollution, none of that matters compared to this.

lotu 12y ago
Why would presume that owners would not want to install electric car chargers in their garages if there was demand for it? Presumably in such a situation you would be expected to pay for the electricity in the same way you pay for your gas, so installing chargers would actually make money. The building owners would have to hate money to not want to install electric car chargers in their buildings. Also, for many urban dwellers the choice is academic because they choose to not own a car at all. Instead using car sharing services these services would have no problem ensuring that their cars get charging ports.
- thrownaway2424 12y ago
  These things aren't free. An apartment with a parking garage space with an electric car charger will certainly cost more than one without a charger, and WAY more than one without the parking space at all. If this doesn't translate directly into higher rents then the building owners won't want to do it. Making sure a shared car is charged sounds like a nightmare. The whole point of car sharing is the cars get more use and spend less time parked. Considering how long it takes to charge some of these rigs, I'm surprised that the sharing companies have adopted them. My car share offers three models of battery-electric vehicle, one of them is the ridiculous Scion that only goes 35 miles between charges. Personally I don't understand how the economics works on that.

ams6110 12y ago

There are fuel cells that don't require pure hydrogen, they can use light hydrocarbons such as methane or alcohol both of which have a much more mature distribution infrastructure in place.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

tarikjn 12y ago

Refilling and storage issues are being worked on by using ethanol instead of H2 (look up Direct Alcohol Fuel Cell). It is considered better than methanol due to a much lower toxicity and higher energy density but the tech is just not there yet. This is considered to be the future for medium size batteries (small vehicles, hand machinery etc.). Beyond that, what is wrong with green crude-derived fuels (gasoline, diesel, jet fuel) as a medium of energy storage? It is being produced right now in small quantities after refining green crude made from algae grown into water/sunlight (carbon neutral form). Some advantages: * doesn't compete with arable land like corn ethanol * can be grown in salt water * no oxygen atoms to oxide your tank/engine * much less sulfurs or combustion by-products than fossil-crude refined fuels * can be refined using existing infrastructure * can be distributed using existing infrastructure * can be used in existing vehicles and machinery * recycling combustion engines is much less energy-intensive than batteries