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

131–140 of 175 posts

Re: Why fuel cell cars don't work

#131

Post by D_Alex »

crimsonalucard wrote: post #11
Gravityloss wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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?

>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.

Re: Why fuel cell cars don't work

#132

Post by schiffern »

r00fus wrote: post #5

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 su…

Here's the dirty little secret of the "hydrogen economy": it's a fossil fuel bait-and-switch.

Renewable hydrogen from water is 2-3x as expensive as making it from natural gas†. It simply can't compete at the pump. People won't pay $9/gal equivalent when $3/gal is available right across the street (or across town, for that matter).

† releasing just as much CO2 and fugitive methane, and still being wholly unsustainable

Re: Why fuel cell cars don't work

#133

Post by mikeash »

hansjorg wrote: post #19

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 po…

You're right that Toyota's stance on this issue raises a big question about the viability of hydrogen.

On the other hand, the fact that Toyota has such a long and successful history with alternative powertrains, and they still are not selling a hydrogen car makes me think it really doesn't work. If they of all companies haven't done it yet, what chance is there?

To me, the only argument you need is the infrastructure argument. I can go out and buy an electric car today and charge it in my garage and drive it all over the place without having any trouble finding places to charge. In the world of hydrogen, I can probably still count the number of filling stations on this continent on my fingers and toes, and that's not going to change any time soon.

Re: Why fuel cell cars don't work

#134

Post by mikeash »

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 don't understand your comment about how home charging still takes four hours. Who cares how long it takes as long as it can be completed overnight?

Re: Why fuel cell cars don't work

#135

Post by mikeash »

swombat wrote: post #125
maxxxxx wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Any car will last for as long as you're willing to pour money into it. There becomes a breakeven point where maintenance costs increase such that it's cheaper to buy a new car than to keep the old one running. There's a good deal of variety in where that point occurs, due to different models having different reliability and different maintenance costs. Whether you're willing and able to do your own work on the car is also a big factor.

It may not have happened yet for that Patrol, but most cars are at that point by then, and it will probably happen soon on that one.

Lots of cars are kept beyond that breakeven point too, either for reasons of nostalgia, or because it's more palatable to spend your money in a continuous stream of small maintenance costs than to put down a big chunk up front.

Re: Why fuel cell cars don't work

#136

Post by mikeash »

abruzzi wrote: post #95
maxxxxx wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I suspect the vast majority of people who drive cars until they fall apart are not buying the car when new, so aside from propping up resale, those users are not terribly relevant to manufacturers.

That "aside from" bit is extremely important. If car resale values drop, new car buyers will on average buy less frequently, and be willing to pay less when they do buy.

Re: Why fuel cell cars don't work

#137

Post by mikeash »

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.

Are they actually betting their entire future on fuel cells? As far as I know they've only announced one fuel cell model, with limited production, and not yet available. It looks to me like they're continuing to bet their entire future on gasoline and hybrid cars, with a bit of experimentation in the area of fuel cells.

Re: Why fuel cell cars don't work

#138

Post by 001sky »

1123581321 wrote: post #118
wernercd wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't imagine growing up with cars. When I think back... I think back to sitting on top of a horse, as we make a journey together. The feel of his hair in your hands as you lean forward. The fun of sitting back while he eats grass. So relaxing and with a sense of bonding. I mean... who would replace a living breathing horse, who is part of the family, with a smelly machine that breaks? There is real nostalgia aroun…

You may have intended this to be a rebuttal, but you actually made the same argument as the person you were replying to. Once the nostalgia/sensation surrounding horses were gone, the companies providing transportation had no more incumbent advantage over auto manufacturers. Likewise, once incumbent car manufacturers can't promote some of the things that people fondly associate with cars, new alternative car companie…

The difference is that mass production of cars is a scale game, unlike dealing with horses. Horse-breeding is best done locally, whilst the drivetrain engineering is really NBD when one is swapped out for the other. Tesla famously droped its first powertrains into 3rd part chasis, and they did quite well with it.

The issue is whether or not the "crown jewels" of EVs will be worth so much (ie, via patented features or trade secrets) that this will allow companies to extract rents. The problem with this approach is that rents only come out from high prices--and this is what tesla is doing--and this won't lead to enough revenues to replicate the infrastrucure of the current (behemoth) chassis makers.

So I don't think its quite cut and dry that upstarts will win out (winner take all) in the long run. It seems most likely whoever wins will M&A their way to global scale by integrating into the existing business structure of the global auto industry.

Look at facebook--they are only making money by becoming the next generation of Madison Avenue. They didn't really change the world in that regards, they simply integrated into the existing circulation system of the media-industrial complex.

Madison avenue doesn't care which blinking screed you stare at for four to eight hours a day, they just want to print money.

Similarly, the auto industry couldn't care less about whether or not you drive a clean or petrol motor. Seriously, all they care about is that you take out a loan from them to buy a box of metal that costs 30 to 50k and make your payments on time.

In other words, the business model will not really change.

The issueas about fly-by wire and the inability to work on your car are already here. It costs $700 dollars to change the battery on a BMW, because its locked down by SW. But that is a superficial level of business model change. Upgrades and spare parts will always be a busienesss line, but the core sale will always revolve around ownership of a block of metal or composites that locks you into the need to maintain it.

The more fururistic car companies of tomorrow are likely going to be something like uber or zip car combined with driverless cars and provided on-demand. But until you get to a system that fundamentally changes the distribution of transportation assets and the service model on that scale, the existing players will not really be obsolete.

Re: Why fuel cell cars don't work

#139

Post by mikeash »

sliverstorm wrote: post #56
Animats wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Toyota's interest is surprising. I saw that recently, and was amazed. I thought everyone had given up on hydrogen as an auto fuel, now that batteries were good enough for electric cars. Hydrogen is not itself a source of energy. It has to be made from something. Electrolysis of water is more wasteful of energy than putting the same electricity into a battery. Hydrogen from natural gas is possible, but why not just ru…

Hydrogen is not itself a source of energy. (The same can be said of both electricity and batteries)

The difference is that everybody knows that's true of electricity (a shocking number of people think that hydrogen is just somehow... found), electricity infrastructure is way better developed, and electrical generation is considerably more efficient.

Re: Why fuel cell cars don't work

#140

Post by bobbles »

sandstrom wrote: post #111
bobbles wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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)

Yeah, adequate infrastructure at all the 'break' points would essentially solve the problem as people should be taking those 3 hour breaks anyway
Post reply on HN