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

41–50 of 67 posts

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

#41

Post by ChuckMcM »

Interesting comment. I really like Elon but I think he's a bit off here. My reasoning is that fuel is fuel. Basically you get the energy out of gasoline through an exothermic reaction with oxygen, you get the energy out of Lithium Phosphate by the electron exchange reactions with the cathode. Fuel cells can be the middle road, liquid fuel into electron exchange through catalysts.

The "issue" with fuel cells is that you cannot easily make fuel at home. I get that, if we're one end use energy form (electricity) then we can optimize the infrastructure to carry and deliver that efficiently. But arguments about energy density are silly. There is way more energy in a gallon of gas than you can put into an equal volume or weight of battery. That is why you can use it as a fuel at 20% efficiency and still have a viable business model.

So what is 'bullshit' here? Is it that people won't create the infrastructure to make fuel cell friendly fuels? Is it that a parallel fuel structure can't compete with the existing gas distribution infrastructure? So I don't buy the idea that fuel cells as a power mechanism are non-viable but could see and argument that a car eco system based on them is unlikely.

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

#42

Post by a-priori »

Gonzih wrote: post #19
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…

But same can be applied to electricity. Yes you can get green electricity nowadays but majority is still produced by old fashion power stations.

Depends where you are and your definition of 'green'. In Ontario, right now we're running on:

- 57% nuclear

- 25% hydro

- 14% gas

- 3% wind

- 1% coal

- If you consider nuclear, hydroelectric and wind to be 'green' (in the sense that they don't produce CO2), then we're running on 85% green power in Ontario right now.

Source: http://media.cns-snc.ca/ontarioelectricity/ontarioelectricit...

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

#43

Post by rory096 »

soperj wrote: post #17
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…

At the end of the day they're not burning the fossil fuel, so it is a clean alternative...

Except for every 4 H2 molecules you get a CO2 that's generally released to the atmosphere: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production

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

#44

Post by thangalin »

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…

Tesla plans to create battery-swapping stations that switch battery packs faster than filling an empty petrol tank, which can mitigate recharging.

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

#45

Post by pmahoney »

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!

I know this is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but what would the long-term consequences be of importing large quantities of hydrogen from off-planet and then binding it to local oxygen?

I suppose if we had the tech to do that, we might be able to find off-planet oxygen as well...? Except wasn't most of ours produced by plants splitting carbon-dioxide?

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

#46

Post by adambom »

It kind of bothers me when people talk about fuel cell vehicles as being "emissions free". Producing the Hydrogen required to run a fuel cell requires either electrolysis of water, or extracting it from natural gas. That's really energy intensive. Either the emissions come out your tailpipe or go out a smokestack. Pick your poison.

There are other interesting fuel cell technologies that use liquids, like methanol, instead of Hydrogen as a fuel source, but even Methanol requires energy to be produced.

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

#47

Post by walshemj »

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

yes but the number of places that are suitable are limited and it might be politicaly sensitive eg flooding Wales and Scotland to provide power for the English.

And farmers might object to you taking the water they use for irrigation

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

#48

Post by walshemj »

frezik wrote: post #40
Xylakant wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Um have you seen a pumped storage power plants they are major civil engineering constructions.

You could probably add a small hydrogen storage facility to every wind farm in the UK for less than the cost of the public inquiry into a new pumped storage scheme.

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

#49

Post by stonemetal »

Gonzih wrote: post #22
XorNot wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Charging time is overblown. You can charge a modern battery to 80% in about 5 minutes. That's about how long it takes to fill my car with gas at the moment. You're not going to be refueling a hydrogen fueled car that quick - it's a volatile, extremely high pressure, extremely cold gas. The safety considerations are substantial .

Ok, what about durability of batteries compared with durability of fuel cell? I'm just curious because I think that batteries are less durable right now than fuel cells.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/durability_...

DOE targets 5k hrs of operation for fuel cells used in transportation. I haven't been able to find an hours of operation for batteries. Wikipedia gins up some numbers to claim 10 to 20 years life expectancy. On the whole it seems batteries are in the lead at this point, but both are near the expected baseline for automobiles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle_battery

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

#50

Post by cmsmith »

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…

And how much energy is lost charging batteries? Because there are no native sources for charged Tesla battery packs. You're either using electricity to charge them at your house (with 60% lost in transmission) or charging them closer to the power plant.

It's more efficient to simply use hydrogen.

I don't understand why anyone would be convinced by arguments like this that don't include numbers, when you can make the argument sound equally valid on either side of the debate.

Post reply on HN