Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Elon Musk Calls Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars ‘Bullshit’

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 67 posts

Re: Elon Musk Calls Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars ‘Bullshit’

#31

Post by gbhn »

beat wrote: post #3

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 unvia…

See this link about energy density: http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-10/iss-1/p20.html

Even liquid hydrogen doesn't come close to the volumetric energy density that seems like it'd be a solution for transportation. And the more compressed or cold you get it has a lot of attendant problems in terms of expansion effects of the gas, or the energy required to compress it.

The permeability of hydrogen in containers, especially at high pressure, is also a real concern. Hydrogen escapes through container walls, and has bad (embrittling, usually) effects on them. A brittle 10,000psi H2 tank on board a car is something you really do not want.

It seems to me the most feasible path to fuel cell power is to use non-pure-hydrogen fuels.

Re: Elon Musk Calls Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars ‘Bullshit’

#32

Post by chris_mahan »

frezik wrote: post #26
toomuchtodo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? M…

I know, we'll get it from the atmosphere of Jupiter!

With a fleet of SpaceX Falcon Heavies?

Re: Elon Musk Calls Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars ‘Bullshit’

#33

Post by CamperBob2 »

Gonzih wrote: post #9

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…

Ever try to move a large quantity of compressed gas from one place to another in a hurry? It's never as simple as "no charging time."

In my opinion, any alternative-fuel technology that doesn't involve swappable power modules -- whether they're batteries, fuel cells, fusion reactors, or whatever -- is bullshit. Tesla has at least taken some steps in the right direction.

Re: Elon Musk Calls Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars ‘Bullshit’

#34

Post by Xylakant »

frezik wrote: post #28
walshemj wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's more efficient and simpler to use that spare energy to pump water uphill: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity

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.

Re: Elon Musk Calls Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars ‘Bullshit’

#35

Post by soperj »

saalweachter wrote: post #30
soperj wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It applies to gasoline cars too, you need energy to process oil into gasoline.

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.

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.

Re: Elon Musk Calls Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars ‘Bullshit’

#36

Post by ryguytilidie »

mongol wrote: post #25

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.

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.

Re: Elon Musk Calls Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars ‘Bullshit’

#37

Post by _ea1k »

magic_haze wrote: post #10
codex wrote: post #2

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…

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 manag…

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

Re: Elon Musk Calls Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars ‘Bullshit’

#38

Post by frezik »

headShrinker wrote: post #6

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 gasolin…

The hydrogen from fossil fuels isn't used for energy directly, but rather for making nitrate fertilizer. Hydrogen energy storage would probably come from electrolyzing water.

Not that this is likely to work, anyway. There's many reasons to believe that hydrogen isn't going to catch up to batteries for this purpose. It's thermodynamically impossible for it to function as a primary energy source unless we can find an easy source of elemental hydrogen. Musk is biased, but he probably had good reasons for taking Tesla in the direction he did.

Re: Elon Musk Calls Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars ‘Bullshit’

#39

Post by kalleboo »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #11
codex wrote: post #2

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…

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? M…

So water electrolysis has losses of 50-80%. And then you need to transport it to refueling stations (which could be pretty high). Edit: forgot the obvious, the losses in the actual fuel cell. 40-60%. Yeah that equation doesn't add up.

What losses to we have on the battery end? Transmission line losses (6%), li-ion charge/discharge losses (80-90%), losses due to the fact that the car needs to keep the battery warm/cool depending on outside temperature (pretty high in the winter, regular 120V outlet is not enough to keep the capacity up).

Personally I dismiss hydrogen mostly because I'm frightened by the thought of a bunch of high pressure fire bombs being driven around by drunk people.

Re: Elon Musk Calls Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars ‘Bullshit’

#40

Post by frezik »

Xylakant wrote: post #34
frezik wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more efficient and simpler to use that spare energy to pump water uphill: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity

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.

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.

Post reply on HN