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

Why fuel cell cars don't work

ssj3gohan.tweakblogs.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 175 posts

Re: Why fuel cell cars don't work

#121

Post by aetherson »

Retric wrote: post #93
aetherson wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an extraordinary claim and I'd like to see some evidence that it's anything like possible.

Edit: A direct example of what I am suggesting 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 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…

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_disadva...

* And of course just the overall scale.

Re: Why fuel cell cars don't work

#122

Post by r00fus »

Retric wrote: post #3

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…

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/ch...

Re: Why fuel cell cars don't work

#123

Post by [deleted] »

Gravityloss wrote: post #8
phkahler wrote: post #7

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…

Excess wind and solar power can be used to generate hydrogen from water.

[deleted]

Re: Why fuel cell cars don't work

#124

Post by toomuchtodo »

cma wrote: post #86
toomuchtodo wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why did you list the lbs for the motor and not the battery pack? =P

Because battery swap stations or other machinery would do the heavy lifting

Re: Why fuel cell cars don't work

#125

Post by swombat »

maxxxxx wrote: post #81
threeseed wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> THAT's what the car companies really fear. No it's not. Cars today are all basically the same and have been for decades. People aren't buying new cars because the components are failing. Generally it's for a new interior, new technologies e.g. support their new iPhone and lifestyle changes.

This may be true for some people but a lot of people I know buy a car when the old one falls apart.

For what it's worth, my dad's diesel Nissan Patrol is about 20 years old now and still running fine. I mean, it's a bit clunky, but it does the job - and the 4wd has got me through some snowy roads, too. Good car. Beyond fuel economy, I don't see why that car needs to be decommissioned any time soon.

So today's cars already last for "decades".

Re: Why fuel cell cars don't work

#126

Post by api »

SilasX wrote: post #115
api wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I really don't understand the whole cars are in league with big oil." Yeah, nobody would ever "conspire" when trillions upon trillions of dollars in economic activity, millions of entrenched (and often unionized) jobs, hundreds of billions of dollars of sunk cost in infrastructure, the economies of entire nations and regions of nations, and generations of established thinking are at stake. That never happens. The pa…

IIUIC, the GP was objecting that car companies have conflicting interests with oil companies on this matter, not that such large conspiracies can't happen given the stakes. That is, car companies would love to be able to sell cars that don't need oil, and so would not (by themselves) hinder such technologies.

I Still disagree. Theoretically you should be right, but try telling a huge bureaucracy they need to lay off half their employees, managers, account execs, etc. because the whole supply chain is shifting.

Things are not as rational as many think. Huge bureaucracies fight for stasis, as if governed by inertia. It's true even if they are dying. Look at Kodak, Commodore Computer, Radio Shack, etc.

Re: Why fuel cell cars don't work

#127

Post by GFK_of_xmaspast »

Shivetya wrote: post #37

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 hu…

I've driven plenty of gas cars, including a bunch of recent vintage, that couldn't go 300 miles on a full tank.

Re: Why fuel cell cars don't work

#128

Post by pcurve »

threeseed wrote: post #76
sandworm wrote: post #57

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/diese…

> THAT's what the car companies really fear. No it's not. Cars today are all basically the same and have been for decades. People aren't buying new cars because the components are failing. Generally it's for a new interior, new technologies e.g. support their new iPhone and lifestyle changes.

Average car life on the road today are pushing 11 years. That's average.

That's actually borderline miracle considering how complex average car is.

With average new car price going pushing $32,000 mark, people would avoid making large purchases like this even every 10 years.

Sure they would love to change it every 5 years, but it's out of the question for most families.

Car companies fear being commoditized, because it's already a very competitive industry.

With global supply chain, computer aided design, parts sharing, and talent poaching, car business is already commoditized than many realize and it is very difficult to differentiate.

Long gone are the days of unique-company know-hows when a Mercedes Benz was literally 3-4 times better than cars that cost 3-4 times less because it offered many things others weren't capable of producing.

More so than electric vehicle, autonomous vehicle is what car companies fear.

I personally think combination of autonomous + electric vehicle will usher in an exciting era, and there is plenty of time for these car companies to adapt.

Re: Why fuel cell cars don't work

#129

Post by megablast »

threeseed wrote: post #72
wumpus wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was too nice to go there: Toyota's announced fuel cell car is expensive and has very poor performance. The fundamental problem is that high power fuel cells are very expensive, linear power with cost. And that expense doesn't seem to be changing quickly. I'd like to believe that Toyota is making rational choices based on their experience with hybrids. But I'm having a hard time believing that.

The world's largest car maker isn't going to bet their entire future on irrational choices. Clearly they have either something in the R&D pipeline or have consumer research which suggests that EV isn't the future. We can all disagree with their bet but you would be frankly a complete idiot to ever dismiss Toyota's decisions lightly.

So you are suggesting they can do no wrong, because they are the largest? This makes no sense at all.

Re: Why fuel cell cars don't work

#130

Post by Retric »

aetherson wrote: post #121
Retric wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edit: A direct example of what I am suggesting 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 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…

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 oth…

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.

Post reply on HN