Elon Musk Calls Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars ‘Bullshit’

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/10/elon-musk-hydrogen/?cid=co13468454

by spazz • 13 years ago

33 66 13 years ago

codex• 13 years ago

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 hydrogen in an ICE engine, as BMW has demonstrated.

The Honda Clarity FCX, a hydrogen powered car, is the only other car to achieve Type V California ZEV credits besides the Model S. Perhaps that's too much competition for Musk. The range of that car is 240 miles.

beat3• 13 years ago

I'd give Elon Musk more credit than generic CEO spin for this. If he thought hydrogen was viable, he'd be working on it.

corresation• 13 years ago

If he thought hydrogen was viable, he'd be working on it.

He is one person, and he is not all knowing. He has limited time and potential. He also has a significant ego and financial interest in their current course.

He's a smart guy, but I'm not going to write something off because he isn't into it.

Kylekramer• 13 years ago

I give Musk a bit more credit than most CEOs, but he has also shown himself to be very capable of playing the spin game in the press recently (the funky math on the 'new finance product', declaring that the NYT backed off its Tesla piece when they in no way did).

magic_haze• 13 years ago

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 managed to implement that efficiently. I don't see any inherent reason why we can't do the same for Hydrogen.

_ea1k• 13 years ago

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

thangalin• 13 years ago

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

toomuchtodo2• 13 years ago

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? Make hydrogen. Too much wind and the transmission operator is shutting down your production? Make hydrogen. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense to use it as an energy transfer medium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy#Current_produc...

soperj5• 13 years ago

source? edit: that link doesn't really say that hydrogen is less efficent than batteries, just that it has less energy than the energy content of the original fuel, which is true with charging a battery too because of transmission losses, ect.

frezik6• 13 years ago

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

kalleboo• 13 years ago

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.

cmsmith• 13 years ago

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.

walshemj4• 13 years ago

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.

frezik6• 13 years ago

It's more efficient and simpler to use that spare energy to pump water uphill:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity

beat3• 13 years ago

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 unviable at industrial scale. There have been advances in alternative catalysts recently, but until fuel cells can be built without rare and exotic raw materials, they're just a toy.

Third, power source. Hydrogen comes from cracking water, which requires energy. It's just a storage medium for energy provided during the cracking process. What's the end-to-end thermal efficiency of that process? And where does the power come from? Of course, this problem applies 100% to battery-powered cars as well.

soperj5• 13 years ago

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

saalweachter3• 13 years ago

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.

gbhn• 13 years ago

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.

beat3• 13 years ago

Thanks for the link. I've always suspected that energy density was a problem, but never investigated it.

fiatmoney• 13 years ago

One advantage is the energy flux. Refueling a fuel cell, or filling a gas tank for that matter, is much faster than charging a battery.

headShrinker• 13 years ago

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 gasoline revenue starts to dwindle.

soperj5• 13 years ago

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

rory096• 13 years ago

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

Gonzih3• 13 years ago

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

a-priori• 13 years ago

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

- <1% other (mostly natural gas, apparently)

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...

marvin2• 13 years ago

I don't understand why there is so much controversy and disagreement surrounding this question. Electric cars are a requirement for a sustainable energy economy. Where the energy comes from, doesn't really matter in the short term as long as it comes from renewable or nuclear energy in the long term.

Regardless, people claiming that electric cars aren't green because the electrical power is often produced from fossil sources, conveniently forget that a lot of fossil fuels are spent producing petroleum fuels. You don't just stick a straw into the ground and have gasoline pour automatically into every gas station in the world.

First, you have to have survey teams (often offshore) find oil. Then you have to build the production infrastructure to get it out of the ground. Then you have to add water injection and other tricks to get it out of the ground. Then you have to transport it to a refinery. Then you have to refine it. Then you have to transport it to gas stations. So it's not as easy as some of the naysayers claim.

frezik6• 13 years ago

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.

api• 13 years ago

There are many technical problems with hydrogen: metal embrittlement, it leaks even through solid substances, etc. They're not insurmountable, but they make hydrogen not that competitive with electric. Elon is not a fan of H2 for rockets either for those very same reasons-- embrittlement, leakage, cost of storage and handling. Guy is flat out anti-hydrogen, man.

That and once you have hydrogen it's not that hard to go from there to CH4-- methane. Once you're there, natural gas fuel cells and vehicles make more sense as methane is infinitely easier to handle and already has a ton of deployed infrastructure.

They're already doing this in Germany-- making CH4 from H2O and CO2 with surplus renewable energy and then feeding it into the natural gas grid.

XorNot2• 13 years ago

Pretty much this. Handling pure hydrogen is a suckers game in terms of complexity. The real problem is we don't have a compact, low temperature direct methane/direct methanol/ethanol fuel cell yet.

Gonzih3• 13 years ago

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 flat and they are very heavy.

XorNot2• 13 years ago

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.

Gonzih3• 13 years ago

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.

walshemj4• 13 years ago

At what amperage and voltage and how much did it cost to upgrade the charging station connection to the grid.

And how do you cool the battery during such a fast charge? what % of the energy is lost in heat from the chemical reaction - even Tesla has to obey the laws of thermo dynamics.

Thinking about it from a thermofluids angle You could I suppose have a complex system of heat exchangers built in to the the battery pack and hook the car up to a water connection and flush chilled water (or better some non conductive fluid) through whilst charging but water and high voltage and amps are not the best of friends.

Now where did i put my steam tables :-)

CamperBob2• 13 years ago

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.

jredwards• 13 years ago

He's completely correct. I've never understood the allure of hydrogen fuel cell powered cars. It's just a shittier, less-viable version of a battery.

soperj5• 13 years ago

The allure was that 15 years ago battery technology sucked.

Sagat• 13 years ago

Obey the Musk!

mongol• 13 years ago

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.

ryguytilidie• 13 years ago

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.

mchannon3• 13 years ago

As an interesting aside, the leading use for hydrogen today, with over 50% of all hydrogen used, is in oil refining. That hydrogen (along with almost all the balance) comes from steam-reformed natural gas.

It's also true that more electricity is consumed refining gasoline (without even figuring the oil itself's energy) than in producing hydrogen (per gge). The important distinction is that gasoline is an outstanding motor fuel, able to deliver 3000x the volumetric energy density of hydrogen gas, 6x the volumetric energy density of compressed hydrogen and 3x the volumetric energy density of liquefied hydrogen.

Those numbers get even more stark when you add in tank weights.

Musk's Youtube video demonstrates a battery changeout faster than a gasoline fillup (BTW, ever filled up a tank with H2? It's not as fast as gasoline per gge; not even close).

I share the BS opinion on hydrogen fuel cells. Hydrogen tanks cost too much, weigh too much and better alternatives exist.

ChuckMcM• 13 years ago

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.

adambom• 13 years ago

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.

elchief• 13 years ago

Here's Ballard's 10-year stock performance:

https://www.google.ca/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&c...

Obama cut funding for fuel cell research a few years ago:

http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/obama-to-...

tocomment• 13 years ago

Has anyone looked into running the fuel cell in reverse to recharge it? I remember seeing a demo at a fair where it was a sealed fuel cell and it could go from h2 02 to water and then run it in reverse to recreate the o2 and h2.

If that's feasible it could simply be a new type of battery, no?

Elon Musk Calls Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars ‘Bullshit’

Related Stories