
Why fuel cell cars don't work - skrause
http://ssj3gohan.tweakblogs.net/blog/11470/why-fuel-cell-cars-dont-work-part-1
======
r00fus
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 sucks the oxygen from the real threats to the industry:
Industrial/Consumer solar and BEV (battery electric vehicles).

It's analogous to "clean coal": [http://www.coal-is-dirty.com/top-5-clean-
coal-myths](http://www.coal-is-dirty.com/top-5-clean-coal-myths)

~~~
soperj
I really don't understand the whole cars are in league with big oil. What on
earth do the car companies have to get out of it? The big name in the 90s,
Ballard, had buy in from a couple of car companies and no oil companies.

~~~
krschultz
Don't picture a bunch of oil tycoons with monocles sitting in back rooms
smoking cigars with Ford execs laughing about how they are going to crush
Tesla.

It's much more subtle than that. I grew up around cars. My dad races them as
his hobby. We restored a few, and spent plenty of time wrenching on a car
together. It was one of the highlights of my childhood. It's still one of the
things we often talk about when we see each other. I'm sure it's the reason I
got a mechanical engineering degree.

When I think back to those times, a bunch of fragments of memories pop up. The
sound a racing motor makes the first time you fire it up. The smell of
gasoline vs diesel vs oil vs brake fluid vs transmission fluid. The grease on
your hands. Knowing all the components under the hood, how they go together.
How to start a cold engine with a flakey carb. How to fix a flooded engine.

There is real nostalgia around cars, and that means gasoline/diesel engines. I
can barely enjoy modern cars with their plastic engine fairings and electronic
controls, much less an electric car with just batteries and motors. I love
building robots, and I'm a professional programmer now, but electric cars just
don't excite me from the perspective of working on them. (Driving a Tesla is a
different story).

Layer on top of that nostalgia, which I believe most of the people that work
in the auto industry have, is the reality of 100+ years of IC engine
expertise. If electric cars are the future, how much advantage does Ford have
over a startup? Certainly some, but not nearly as much as they do in gasoline
engines. Every bit of the drive train is completely different in an electric
car. Not only are you throwing out the expertise in engines, but transmissions
and differentials as well.

I can imagine that makes their position less defendable.

~~~
wernercd
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 around horses. And phone booths. and Sony Walkman. and
CRTs. And... and... and... .. .

People hate change. Just because "cars = gas/diesel" to YOU doesn't mean that
a new generation of kids won't break their teeth, and learn to be engineers,
with electric or hydrogen or whatever....

~~~
1123581321
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 companies are
better able to put them out of business.

The best point in your comment is that alternative car companies may be able
to generate some of that nostalgia early enough to use it against incumbents -
I think this is possible and that for some people, they will be happy to trade
petroleum good feelings for electric good feelings while petroleum-based cars
are still a sizeable part of the market.

~~~
001sky
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.

------
sandworm
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/diesel engine ticking over. Better yet, those parts you do need can
be generic. Electric motors are nothing special, nor are batteries. Since they
do not mechanically interact they don't need to be as engine/vehicle specific
as parts today. Once EVs become the norm, and the teething problems of EVs are
worked out, aftermarket replacements will be everywhere.

Build a car from non-rusting carbon fiber, fill it with easily replaceable
generic parts, and you've got a recipe for vehicles lasting decades. THAT's
what the car companies really fear.

~~~
astrocat
I doubt this is the case. If anything, the reasons you give boil down to: "the
core of the car - the moving vehicle bit - will become commodity" and when
this happens, cars will become "cars" like phones are now "phones," as in,
they're not so much phones anymore as tiny computers that can also make calls.
And this will definitely NOT increase their lifetime. If anything, it will
decrease it... just like we replace our phones every 2 years.

~~~
allemagne
This is an interesting idea, but I'd be curious to know what kinds of
innovations in car functionality are possible. Also, assuming that you're
referring to a kind of planned obsolescence, how can a company convince you to
replace the entire vehicle if the moving parts are working fine?

If the computer is broken, replace the computer. Update the self-driving
software over the internet. Why would you need to replace the whole car?

Unless, of course, a company tries to integrate points of failure all
throughout the body, so that "replacing the computer" of the car or what have
you becomes impossible due to the delicate electronic parts. Call me an
optimist but at the price of cars today I don't think anyone but the super
rich are gullible or decadent enough to fall for something like that instead
of a cheaper, more reliable modular alternative. Unless the price of a brand
new car becomes similar to that of a new phone, I don't think that future is
very likely.

~~~
TheLoneWolfling
If only it were so simple. You're assuming discrete components. And you're
assuming consumer sanity.

"Every protocol the car uses is proprietary and protected under DCMA / etc.
There are chips in every component that don't allow the car to start if any
component isn't a first-party part."

We're already seeing this sort of thing. Look at the Tesla. Or the Lightning
connector from Apple.

~~~
semi-extrinsic
Cars have been like this for years. This forum post [1] from 2004 discusses
VIN specific coding, so that phenomenon is at least ten years old.

[1][http://forum.roadfly.com/archive/index.php/t-8237302.html?s=...](http://forum.roadfly.com/archive/index.php/t-8237302.html?s=2cf4baa4e0680a41c3e3081ddf49533d)

------
hansjorg
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 point of view.

~~~
gambiting
I am really really curious how anyone is trying to solve the problem of
Hydrogen leaking out of literally any container you could put it into.
Smallest molecule+huge pressure = leaks out of pure lead canisters. When
Mercedes made their Hydrogen-powered concept car they said the whole tank
would evaporate naturally within 3 weeks if I remember correctly? As hydrogen
forms an explosive mixture with air, I cannot see the problem of it leaking
into surrounding environment as not being completely critical.

~~~
shazzy
I remember reading about how researchers were trying to store hydrogen in what
are (essentially) nano-scale plastic beads.

[http://www.theengineer.co.uk/news/nanobeads-could-store-
liqu...](http://www.theengineer.co.uk/news/nanobeads-could-store-liquid-
hydrogen-to-fuel-cars/1007213.article)

~~~
cmdrfred
I wonder if that will negate the 'clean' aspect of the whole deal.

[http://www.npr.org/2014/05/21/313157701/why-those-tiny-
micro...](http://www.npr.org/2014/05/21/313157701/why-those-tiny-microbeads-
in-soap-may-pose-problem-for-great-lakes)

------
phkahler
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 the carbon!

AFAIK there are no other great sources of hydrogen.

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

~~~
graphene
Unfortunately, there's no efficient process for that. Efficiency of
electrolysis (when not using expensive catalysts) is around 50%.

~~~
Symmetry
I seem to recall that synthesizing methane or hydrocarbons from water and
atmospheric CO2 isn't that much less efficient than that. Given the efficiency
of internal combustion engines versus fuel cells and existing infrastructure
you might as well get your carbon neutral transportation that way instead of
with hydrogen.

------
Retric
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 a real option.

~~~
crimsonalucard
Unlike Europe, most of the urban infrastructure of the United states centers
around the automobile. I'm not referring to roads vs train tracks. I'm
referring to density Of the population. Our suburban cul De sacs make most
forms of rail based public transportation prohibitely expensive to build. Only
in a high density city like nyc would this make sense. To address the problem
we need to dramitcally change our cities.

~~~
crimsonalucard
I also want to mention that in NYC and many major metropolitan cities in the
world, your proposal has already been implemented. It's called a subway.

------
cpprototypes
Most discussions of FC and BEV miss the most important factor that will
determine which one succeeds in the marketplace. Comparing engine efficiency,
pollution, none of that matters compared to this single factor. And that
factor is infrastructure.

BEV supporters often assume that everyone lives in a nice suburban home with a
garage. But the reality is far from this. Millions live in apartments/condos
with parking structures that contain hundreds or even thousands of cars. And
there may be a trend of the younger generations favoring denser urban living
instead of the suburban living of past generations. Installing a few charging
ports in a parking structure that has hundreds of parking spots is not a
realistic solution. Will the owners of apartments and condos be willing to
install hundreds of electric plugs into parking structures? I think the answer
is either no, or they would do it too slowly to determine the FC vs BEV fight.

So for the millions in this situation, there are only these options for the
future. BEV battery swapping stations vs Hydrogen stations. Supercharger is
too slow compared to hydrogen filling. Only battery swapping is comparable.
Which infrastructure is built more quickly will determine if FC or BEV wins.
Energy efficiency, pollution, none of that matters compared to this.

~~~
lotu
Why would presume that owners would not want to install electric car chargers
in their garages if there was demand for it? Presumably in such a situation
you would be expected to pay for the electricity in the same way you pay for
your gas, so installing chargers would actually make money. The building
owners would have to hate money to not want to install electric car chargers
in their buildings.

Also, for many urban dwellers the choice is academic because they choose to
not own a car at all. Instead using car sharing services these services would
have no problem ensuring that their cars get charging ports.

~~~
thrownaway2424
These things aren't free. An apartment with a parking garage space with an
electric car charger will certainly cost more than one without a charger, and
WAY more than one without the parking space at all. If this doesn't translate
directly into higher rents then the building owners won't want to do it.

Making sure a shared car is charged sounds like a nightmare. The whole point
of car sharing is the cars get more use and spend less time parked.
Considering how long it takes to charge some of these rigs, I'm surprised that
the sharing companies have adopted them. My car share offers three models of
battery-electric vehicle, one of them is the ridiculous Scion that only goes
35 miles between charges. Personally I don't understand how the economics
works on that.

~~~
demallien
Paris already has a very successful shared electric car device called Autolib.
I use it at least once a week, and it's brilliant. The scheme works because
the battery has a range of about 150km, but the typical trip is only 5-10km.
The systemight not work as well in less dense cities.

~~~
greglindahl
Wow, this is interesting: they use a car that I haven't seen mentioned before.
It has a range a bit longer than the Leaf. In low-speed urban driving it's
good for 250km range, or 150km on the highway. Given that it's mostly used for
short trips in cities, that's enough that it will probably last an entire day,
and then charge fully overnight.

------
zwiteof
I'm surprised he didn't mention the volumetric efficiency of compressed
hydrogen compared to gasoline when comparing the specific energy density of
the two fuels. Yes, you have more than 3x the energy per unit mass, but you
have more than 5.5x less energy per unit volume. So instead of a simple 12
gallon gas tank, you need a 66+ gallon pressure vessel adding plenty of weight
and taking up volume that would otherwise be useful for cargo or other
purposes.

~~~
addicted44
It's the first part in a series of articles. I'm sure he will mention this,
especially considering he hints at the densoty issues right at the beginning.

------
VLM
Another problem is fundamentally the game you're playing is mass and capex
providing a way to turn air and H2 into power. Author is correct that fuel
cells suck, but whats even worse is a little hybrid H2 turbine would be
lighter, cheaper, higher powered, and in a real world situation, higher natgas
well to wheel efficiency. In fact, rather than turning natgas from a well into
H2, you'd be better off just burning the natgas in the turbine.

Turbines do have some deployment issues such as outputing enough nitrogen
oxides to generate a cloud, etc. But in a hybrid system, they're pretty cool.

Basically you're taking an electric car and a very small electric company
natgas peaking plant and putting it in the trunk with a charger.

------
Htsthbjig
I believe fuel cells will work when they can use methane, butane or propane
cheaply.

I already use an NGV(natural gas) car. Using fuel cells means you can get
60%-70% efficiency instead of 40% of thermal engines because you don't have
Carnot't limit.

Also, with natural gas lots of people will be able to charge on their home.
Lots of people have natural gas pipelines in their houses in Europe.

Today you can use this fuels only on fixed places, but over time we will be
able to use it on cars.

But I don't believe this will happen soon. And when it happens it will
probably use at least a small battery for getting the benefits of
it:regenerative braking and instant responsiveness.

~~~
mhurron
Isn't using any hydrocarbon going to give you the issue with pollution that
gasoline does? You're not really solving any problems simply changing what
hydrocarbon you choose to burn.

~~~
Htsthbjig
"You're not really solving any problems simply changing what hydrocarbon you
choose to burn."

You are solving lots of problems:

1-Lots of countries in the world have natural gas(or coal), but very few have
oil.Just not depending on the petrodollar is a big plus as it would made
countries more self reliant.

2-Reserves of natural gas are way higher than of oil.

3-If efficiency doubles, you need to spend half of it.

4-You can synthesize it artificially if you have C02, water, and energy.

------
ars
Hydrogen is a complete dead end. It's too hard to make, ship, store, or use.

But methane is not. Can fuel cells work with methane? I think so, and if they
don't work well, then that's where the research should be directed.

~~~
Brakenshire
As far as I understand the alternative candidate is Methanol, which can be
produced from Hydrogen, which has a relatively high energy density, is liquid
at room temperature, and works well with fuel cells.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_economy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_economy)

------
mstachowiak
For those curious to hear Elon's stance (as an electric car maker with a large
bet on lithium ion batteries, he's obviously biased):
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_e7rA4fBAo&t=10m8s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_e7rA4fBAo&t=10m8s)

~~~
embro
At least he can back up his claims with science.

~~~
mstachowiak
Agreed. I think his arguments are very sound and rational.

------
jgamman
ex-FC researcher here. pretty much gets it. some other context: it's hydrogen
for cars because of the chemistry ie, start-up, shut-down and response times.
most FC claims are more of a 'displaced emmissions' scheme than zero-
emmissions (unless you're in say, NZ where we have @#$# loads of renewables on
our grid). PEM fuel cells are limited to 100 dC due to the hydrogen ion
transport via liquid water - that's a problem. at this temp you need exotic
metals like Platinum to crack the molecules open for rxn - that's a problem,
especially if you're into ethical mining/sourcing. FC cars will need to
operate like whiteware or, well cars do now but literally be a small chemical
plant. storing hydrogen isn't as easy as people think, it can really screw up
'normal' metals (lone protons are very tricky little @##@s to keep track of).
having said all that, FC are fascinating from a tech perspective but IMHO,
reasonably sized, high temperature FCs working in highly deregulated markets
are about the only place they'll work at all and even then, there's a lot of
competition with faster technology iteration rates. i've been reading the same
articles since the early-90s - FC car tech is always about 10 years away.

~~~
demultiplexer
(writer of the blog post here) Interesting, can you divulge a bit more about
where and when you did FC research? Was it academic or for a manufacturer?

You are absolutely right; PEM FCs - and I glossed over this in the blog post,
might want to readdress it in a future part - are the only portable-enough
technology for fuel cells and they inherently come with this ion transport
problem and by extension cooling problem that is just unsolvable. Which is
essentially the root cause of the complexity of an FCV.

Anyway, I feel your jadedness. Until I actually worked with fuel cells, I had
absolutely no idea. Nobody had adequately conveyed to me how these things work
and what goes into actually building FCVs. Things finally started to click in
my head when we had an electric kart on batteries done within days after
completing the frame, yet it took many months until the fuel cell worked. And
this was a pretty ready-to-go fuel cell in most respects (Hydrogenics HyPM8).

I was too young back then to appreciate how long FC tech has been 'just around
the corner' in the media. Now I understand. I built an FCV 7 1/2 years ago!
And they're still pretty much at the same point. I wish things were different
because I love the tech, but nature wins this time.

~~~
jgamman
hi, feel free to get in touch via my profile if you want. I did FC research in
late 90s first at Monash Uni as a post-doc (i did the MeOH reforming for my
colleague who worked on the PEM) and from there moved into a development role
at CFCL, one of the longer-living attempts at commercialising high temp FCs
(just had a look, they're still going). with my background (heterogeneous
catalysis), i mostly worked on the balance of plant (reforming, desulph and
catox) and by extension the anode. from there i worked in an electricty
trading division here in NZ which completely blew my mind wrt the value
proposition of FC technology. Now that i understand the technology and the
market, I'm happy to be doing other things. NB this isn't because i don't like
FCs (i'm strangely enamored of the three-phase boundary as a topic of research
;-) but because i don't think most people, including those commercialising
them really understand how they would be used and i suspect that most activity
is mining clean-gen subsidies which has a place but ultimately needs to be a
transition, not the end point. maybe their business cases have gotten more
sophisticated over the years but i doubt it. as i tell people now - FC tech is
exactly the right answer to a very specific question. most people then ask
what the question is... ;-)

------
jessaustin
The picture of their race-car surprised me. The driver's seat is right next
to, and seemingly unshielded from, a stack of 36 "very large ultracapacitors".
Are these less likely to explode than other capacitors? Sure they might have
electronics designed to keep them within safe operating margins, but for
safety I'd trust distance and enclosure more than custom electronics.

~~~
demultiplexer
It's a... student project ;)

However, the actual amount of energy in those ultracaps isn't that much. We're
talking a couple tens of kWs or, in other words, all those caps together don't
even hold the same energy as one single li-ion cell (18650 size). The energy
density is low, thus, the actual safety issue is fairly minor.

That being said, they are in a special Nylon enclosure with polycarbonate
sides which provides an effective shield in the case of rupture. But, at the
moment that picture was shot we hadn't actually tested that yet :D

Again, students.

------
tarikjn
Refilling and storage issues are being worked on by using ethanol instead of
H2 (look up Direct Alcohol Fuel Cell). It is considered better than methanol
due to a much lower toxicity and higher energy density but the tech is just
not there yet. This is considered to be the future for medium size batteries
(small vehicles, hand machinery etc.).

Beyond that, what is wrong with green crude-derived fuels (gasoline, diesel,
jet fuel) as a medium of energy storage?

It is being produced right now in small quantities after refining green crude
made from algae grown into water/sunlight (carbon neutral form).

Some advantages:

    
    
      * doesn't compete with arable land like corn ethanol
      * can be grown in salt water
      * no oxygen atoms to oxide your tank/engine
      * much less sulfurs or combustion by-products than fossil-crude refined fuels
      * can be refined using existing infrastructure
      * can be distributed using existing infrastructure
      * can be used in existing vehicles and machinery
      * recycling combustion engines is much less energy-intensive than batteries

------
JoeAltmaier
Title should be "why Hydrogen fuel cell cars don't work"

------
luchs
There are actually two buses in operation at my university which run on fuel
cells:
[http://www.kit.edu/downloads/Flyer_Wasserstoffbus_EN.pdf](http://www.kit.edu/downloads/Flyer_Wasserstoffbus_EN.pdf)

They have been in operation since 2013, so they seem to work pretty well.

~~~
shazzy
TFL (Transport for London) have been running hydrogen buses on a route in
London since 2011. According to the link they have 8 in total and the entire
route is operated with hydrogen buses.

[http://www.hydrogenlondon.org/projects/london-hydrogen-
bus-p...](http://www.hydrogenlondon.org/projects/london-hydrogen-bus-project/)

~~~
thrownaway2424
AC Transit also operates 12 hydrogen fuel cell buses.
[http://www.actransit.org/environment/the-
hyroad/](http://www.actransit.org/environment/the-hyroad/)

------
Shivetya
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 hundred mile range isn't available using "safe tanks"
when the Honda Clarity has been around six years and does twice that.

Manufacturers seem to be betting on fuel cells because they have many other
uses other than cars. They also will have a weight advantage over battery
powered cars

~~~
greglindahl
Lots of people who have yet to own an electric car think like you do. People
who've tried it and have home chargers discover:

1) It's really nice that your car is fully charged every morning... sure beats
having to visit gas stations on a regular basis. 4 hours is not a big deal if
you're asleep.

2) If you want to go long distance, a network like Tesla's supercharger does
the trick. (Tesla owners drive SF-LA by stopping twice for 20 minutes, or pay
for a 5-minute battery swap once.)

3) While the only long-range electric car today costs 80k+, Chevy and Tesla
are both planning on releasing a cheaper long-range car in 2017.

Is it the case that anyone other than cars is betting on hydrogen fuel cells?
The only big fuel cells that I've ever heard of are used in the datacenter
industry, where Bloom Energy is the main fuel cell company, and they power
theirs on hydrocarbons, not hydrogen.

~~~
vacri
_and have home chargers_

This is an incredibly significant point that continuously gets glossed over in
these pro v con lists. I park my car on the street, and that's not
particularly uncommon. Should I run an extension cable over the footpath? What
if I have to park further away than my cable reaches?

~~~
greglindahl
It's not glossed over: That's why I mentioned it. You are not in the sweet
spot for this generation of electric cars. If you look around Hacker News, you
will find a bunch of people like you complaining that it doesn't work for
people like you. Sorry. Electric cars can grow a lot without buyers like you.
If they grow to the point that you're a big problem, they'll be pretty common.

------
nickbauman
I thought fuel cells were debunked 10 years ago? The sad part is that power
distribution and storage for wind isn't keeping up. Here in Minnesota, Buffalo
Ridge Power (BR is one of the windiest places in the nation), many of the
multi-megawatt turbines are forced to idle down because there's no place for
the power to go. A logical place to put this power is in fuel cells.

------
ams6110
There are fuel cells that don't require pure hydrogen, they can use light
hydrocarbons such as methane or alcohol both of which have a much more mature
distribution infrastructure in place.

------
smegel
Why "hydrogen" fuel cell cars don't work. Quite the misleading title.

~~~
demultiplexer
(author here): this is part 1. I will go into other types of fuel cells in a
future part. Hydrogen is the focus of the first two parts just because this is
the most mature technology and has actually been used in a couple of (kinda..)
production cars.

