
Elon Musk Calls Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars ‘Bullshit’ - spazz
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/10/elon-musk-hydrogen/?cid=co13468454
======
codex
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.

~~~
toomuchtodo
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...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy#Current_production_methods)

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

~~~
pmahoney
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?

~~~
frezik
More water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas. It's quite a bit more potent
of one than CO2, in fact.

------
api
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.

~~~
XorNot
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.

------
headShrinker
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.

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

~~~
marvin
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.

------
beat
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.

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

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

------
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.

------
mchannon
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.

------
jredwards
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.

~~~
soperj
The allure was that 15 years ago battery technology sucked.

------
mongol
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
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.

------
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.

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

[https://www.google.ca/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&c...](https://www.google.ca/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1382558400000&chddm=983365&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=TSE:BLD&ntsp=0&ei=CwpoUrmRAoP-
qAGJ7AE)

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

[http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/obama-
to-...](http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/obama-to-cut-
funding-for-hydrogen-fuel-cell-research.html)

------
Gonzih
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.

~~~
XorNot
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_.

~~~
walshemj
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 :-)

~~~
marvin
Tesla's supercharging stations charge at 135kW 400V DC, recharging >50% of a
85kWH battery in 30 minutes. The power is delivered from a large (>300kWH)
battery pack installed in the charging station, which is continously trickle-
charged from the grid. There will also be swap stations implemented, swapping
out the entire 85kWH battery pack in 2 minutes.

This is largely a solved problem, both from the sides of technology and
deployment. It's just that public perception hasn't caught up yet. Give it 5
years and just about everyone will want one of these cars. For everyday use
you won't even _need_ the quick-charge capability.

~~~
sucramb
> Give it 5 years and just about everyone will want one of these cars.

They sold a batch of MiEV / IOn for $15.000 here and so far everybody is very
enthusiastic about them. I think 5 years is a tad optimistic but I give it
less then 10 years.

------
tocomment
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?

------
fiatmoney
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.

------
Sagat
Obey the Musk!

