backtop


Print 92 comment(s) - last by GREENLOVER.. on Nov 23 at 11:06 AM

He said the best hydrogen fuel cell technology doesn't compare to the energy density of lithium-ion batteries

Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk has made his view on hydrogen fuel cell cars clear: they're bullshit.

In a a speech at a new Tesla service center in Germany, Musk told employees and enthusiasts that those who oppose electric vehicles (EV) but are onboard with new technology like hydrogen fuel cell cars need to know that it's more of a marketing gimmick than a real clean energy solution. 

 “And then they’ll say certain technologies like fuel cell … oh god … fuel cell is so bullshit. Except in a rocket," said Musk.

More specifically, Musk said that even the best hydrogen fuel cell technology doesn't compare to the energy density of lithium-ion batteries, such as that found in Tesla's Model S. 

Check out the video below for Musk's comments, which start at the 29-minute mark:


Musk may hold this opinion because his company only offers EVs for the time being, but not all automakers feel that hydrogen fuel cell is a waste of time.

Earlier this month, Toyota said it was passing up EVs in favor of more hybrids and its first hydrogen fuel cell release in 2015. According to Toyota Chairman Takeshi Uchiyamada, EV batteries need at least two major breakthroughs before they can replace gasoline or hybrid vehicles. 
 
"The reason why Toyota doesn’t introduce any major [all-electric product] is because we do not believe there is a market to accept it,” said Uchiyamada. "I personally expect a lot from this hydrogen fuel cell technology. If government and industry work together, this might be part of the long-term solution."

Back in July, General Motors (GM) and Honda announced that they'd team up for fuel cell vehicle technology as well. They hope to commercialize the technology by 2020. 

However, GM still has a foot in the EV market as well. In fact, it wants to directly compete with Tesla by offering a 200-mile affordable EV. Tesla said it is working on a new vehicle with the same range, which aims to be more affordable than the current Model S. GM is also gunning for Tesla with luxury Cadillac EVs

Others onboard with Musk's love for EVs is Volkswagen, which wants to lead the EV market by 2018 starting with the eGolf and eUp!, and Nissan, which has upped its EV efforts by cutting purchase and lease prices of the all-electric Leaf and even offering free charging for a year to Leaf owners in Texas (and eventually other states).

Tesla is certainly a superpower in the EV startup realm. The company successfully paid off its $465 million government loans nine years early, pulled a surprise profit for Q2 2013 with a revenue of $405.1 million, unveiled new tech for its Model S (swappable battery tech) and the Model S even snagged the highest safety rating from the NHTSA. It makes sense that Musk would try to keep this momentum going by advocating EVs over hydrogen fuel cells. 

Source: Wired



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Quite frankly, he's right
By Mint on 10/23/2013 1:48:45 PM , Rating: 2
Between cost (Honda's FCX is estimated to cost $120k+), power density, energy density (good luck fitting an H2 tank into a 4-inch thick slab like the Tesla), and infrastructure, fuel cells don't have a chance.

The first market for fuel cells will be power generation, where promising startups like Redox Power Systems are trying to heavily undercut Bloom Energy's systems (which cost ~$10k/kW). But even $1k/kW is too much for a car, which needs ~20kW avg power to drive on the highway, and even then will need a supercap/battery for acceleration (like the FCX currently has).

Batteries are going to leave fuel cells in their dust, and have fundamentally higher efficiency as well.




RE: Quite frankly, he's right
By Dr of crap on 10/23/2013 2:17:59 PM , Rating: 4
While I agree with you, why not let them try???

A lot thought that Tesla wouldn't make it, but here we are and they are doing just fine. AND to get started they needed a loan from you and me (govt loan). And the Roadster cost over $100,000.

I say at least let them try, see what happens.

The problem with hydrogen is the same as corn for ethanol. It costs almost as much to make it as its selling price. But with economy of sales and break thoroughs along the way, they mimght get the price down.


RE: Quite frankly, he's right
By Shig on 10/23/2013 2:31:17 PM , Rating: 2
Well we are going to find out. Toyota is pushing ahead with their full production fuel cell vehicle for 2015.


RE: Quite frankly, he's right
By Mint on 10/23/2013 2:36:27 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, I'm not against them trying. But are the car companies actually trying, or just putting up a facade to look green, as Elon alleges?

There's a lot of talk about fuel cells and little action. The gov't had big credits for them, too:
http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Corporations/Qualifi...
If there were any fuel cell companies that had a viable plan, they'd get ATVM loans as well. However, they didn't.

Cost isn't the problem with hydrogen. It's a lot cheaper than gasoline. The problem is distribution and storage.


RE: Quite frankly, he's right
By ven1ger on 10/23/2013 4:01:12 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/hydrogen-cars-hi...

GM has a working model of a hydrogen fuel cell car that seems to be doing extremely well. But, of course, the question is about the transport delivery of the hydrogen for refueling is a matter for debate.


RE: Quite frankly, he's right
By ven1ger on 10/23/2013 4:16:06 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.treehugger.com/cars/toyotas-new-fuel-ce...

Toyota concept looks very promising. Even the idea that fuel cell technology could be utilized in other venues is definitely interesting. Fuel cell technology may be in its infancy commercially, but like everything else, it has to start someplace, and just like when everyone was opining about EV cars, hybrids they are here and will be sticking around. Hydrogen fuel cell technology is facing the same uphill battle against the detractors, but I think it has excellent promise for the future.


RE: Quite frankly, he's right
By purerice on 10/23/2013 8:03:26 PM , Rating: 2
Speaking of facades to look green, Elon should know very well.
The total ecological cost from production through scrap of a Tesla is higher than for most LEVs, yet the "zero emissions" is one of the primary points Elon and his supporters keep harping on. Slightly hypocritical.

One thing I don't get though with hydrogen is that water vapor is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. It doesn't hurt you to breathe in and it doesn't stink, but as far as the environment is concerned, oil is cleaner.


RE: Quite frankly, he's right
By Mint on 10/24/2013 12:53:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The total ecological cost from production through scrap of a Tesla is higher than for most LEVs
Most LEVs don't compete with 15-20 MPG luxury sedans.


RE: Quite frankly, he's right
By Spuke on 10/24/2013 7:23:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Most LEVs don't compete with 15-20 MPG luxury sedans.
Which luxury sedans are these?


RE: Quite frankly, he's right
By Mint on 10/25/2013 1:33:48 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Quite frankly, he's right
By JKflipflop98 on 10/25/2013 7:02:51 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, it's not like there's naturally water vapor in the air or anything.


RE: Quite frankly, he's right
By Reclaimer77 on 10/23/13, Rating: 0
RE: Quite frankly, he's right
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/23/2013 6:41:29 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
It's right up there with the CEO of Coke saying Pepsi doesn't taste as good...
It doesn't :o


RE: Quite frankly, he's right
By Spuke on 10/24/2013 7:24:45 PM , Rating: 2
It sure as hell does!!!


RE: Quite frankly, he's right
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/24/2013 10:17:31 PM , Rating: 2
Pepsi is disgusting....


RE: Quite frankly, he's right
By Mint on 10/23/2013 7:02:49 PM , Rating: 2
You think Musk is saying anything original with these comments?

This has nothing to do with him. Hydrogen fuel cells have the same obstacles they always did. The gov't was offering a $12,000 tax credit for Honda's FCX, and they still didn't sell more than a handful.


RE: Quite frankly, he's right
By tng on 11/1/2013 4:33:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
they still didn't sell more than a handful.
It was my understanding that the FCX was lease only and people applied but only a handful were chosen. The actual price to make the car was something obscene like $200K and they wanted them back after the lease was up.

The FCX was like a beta test vehicle released to the public on a limited basis so they could gather data on the program. If that is true they did go all the way in testing the concept, always did admire Honda's gumption when it came to throwing new things out there.


RE: Quite frankly, he's right
By deltaend on 10/23/2013 2:31:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Batteries are going to leave fuel cells in their dust, and have fundamentally higher efficiency as well.


So... what you are saying is that we need a hybrid fuel cell/EV? Let's do it. ;)


RE: Quite frankly, he's right
By Mint on 10/23/2013 3:01:58 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure how that's related to what you quoted, but fuel cell vehicles are, by their nature, electric hybrids.

What they do is replace most (but not all) of the battery with a tank of hydrogen and a fuel cell. They still have electric motors.


RE: Quite frankly, he's right
By chripuck on 10/25/2013 1:30:05 PM , Rating: 2
He probably meant hybrids. You could certainly see the combination of Prius technology in a fuel cell vehicle.


RE: Quite frankly, he's right
By Mint on 10/25/2013 1:39:14 PM , Rating: 2
It's not a matter of "could". Fuel cell vehicles will necessarily have electric motors and batteries (or maybe supercaps instead). As far as foreseeable technology is concerned, saying "hybrid fuel cell/EV" is redundant.


RE: Quite frankly, he's right
By flyingpants1 on 10/24/2013 3:08:37 AM , Rating: 2
The question is when will we see new batteries? I imagine we'll be seeing iterative improvements on the current lithium ion technology for a very long while. Auto manufacturers have improved upon ICEs for so long with stuff like VVT, CVT, small turbodiesels, etc. I'm interested to see what they do with EVs.

Might sound obvious but the key to EV range is aerodynamics. You can't improve very much on the electric drivetrain like you can with an ICE, it's already very efficient. What you can do is redesign the vehicle body glide push through the air more easily, wasting less energy.

If you could hit 210Wh/mile at highway speeds (very simple to do) in a car like $63k Model S, you'd already be able to make 350 mile trips with currently-existing battery technology. I think that's a realistic target for the future.


RE: Quite frankly, he's right
By Jaybus on 10/24/2013 3:42:44 PM , Rating: 2
You're talking constant speed on the Utah Salt Flats, right? Not the rest of the real world. Starts and stops and uphill climbs have much more to do with mass than aerodynamics. Heating and A/C? Toyota has been pretty savvy in the past about these things, and they are waiting on future battery breakthroughs because, well, the current battery tech is simply not good enough. It's not a matter of engineering. It's a matter of science. Until there is a battery technology with higher energy density, we need hybrids. I can certainly tell you that the range anxiety for a Leaf is very high here in the mountains of East Tennessee.


RE: Quite frankly, he's right
By flyingpants1 on 10/24/2013 8:55:14 PM , Rating: 2
What? The Model S already does 280Wh/mile. The Leaf can already do 210Wh/mile. It is optimistic, but then we are still working with cars that have a 0.23 drag coefficient, not 0.2 as is possible.

quote:
Starts and stops and uphill climbs have much more to do with mass than aerodynamics.


Uh yeah.. I was talking about highway speeds in my post. Air resistance is the single most important factor when driving at highway speeds. In city driving, the Model S 85 can already reach 425+ miles..

quote:
Toyota has been pretty savvy in the past about these things, and they are waiting on future battery breakthroughs because


Because they're the world's largest ICE manufacturer and they don't want to instantly obsolete all of their previous vehicles and wipe out decades of R&D.

quote:
the current battery tech is simply not good enough. It's not a matter of engineering. It's a matter of science.


A $10k battery could get you 200 miles, that's pretty good.

quote:
I can certainly tell you that the range anxiety for a Leaf is very high here in the mountains of East Tennessee.


Luckily, most of us do not live in the mountains of East Tennessee.


RE: Quite frankly, he's right
By chripuck on 10/25/2013 1:28:08 PM , Rating: 2
I'm a little behind in fuel cells, but you're telling me that the energy density of a hydrogen fuel cell is behind a LiIon battery with it's utterly pathetic energy density?


Hydrogen is a BAD idea
By foxalopex on 10/23/2013 3:49:32 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with Musk stating that Hydrogen is a pipe dream. There's too many problems with it:

First off where do you get hydrogen? The easiest way is to convert natural gas into hydrogen but then you're back to fossil fuels which is what we're trying to leave behind. I know some folks argue that you can use electricity to crack water into hydrogen but guess what it's very inefficient so commercially it's easier to use natural gas.

Hydrogen is a very small molecule so in order to store it properly you need special infrastructure and properly sealed tanks to store it in. In fact hydrogen's been known to slip through solid steel because it's small enough to squeeze between iron atoms and weaken metal. At the moment that infrastructure completely doesn't exist. We don't use hydrogen in our homes but we most certainly have electricity.

Fuel Cells are not cheap. Picture a gigantic catalytic converter full of rare earth metals. Spaceships use them because they have money to burn but we certainly don't.

Besides, if anyone was thinking, why bother with hydrogen at all. There's something called natural gas that use small home compressor systems.




RE: Hydrogen is a BAD idea
By Reclaimer77 on 10/23/2013 5:38:31 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I agree with Musk stating that Hydrogen is a pipe dream. There's too many problems with it


Just a few years ago people were saying this about his company, Tesla, producing a marketable EV....

Tesla really should shut the fuck up on this topic. He's being BEYOND hypocritical. He just comes off looking like a d-bag.

quote:
First off where do you get hydrogen?


You DO mean hydrogen right? THE most abundant element in the known Universe. Hydrogen makes up 75% of all mass and 90% of all atoms in existence.

A better question is where DON'T you get hydrogen.

Again, the problems you're describing are NO greater in engineering terms than the electric vehicle.


RE: Hydrogen is a BAD idea
By Redback on 10/23/2013 7:59:17 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry 77, but that is singularly the most stupid post I've read in the last 12 months (and you've already made some pretty impressive contributions to that that dubious distinction!).

Tell us, - is your name an obscure numerical reference to your IQ?

Perhaps as a comparatively recent arrival to this planet, you're unaware that the enormous abundance of Hydrogen in the Universe has precisely zero relevance to its production, distribution and consumption here on earth.

Or were you intending just to zip out for a quick trip to the Sun and pick some up for us?

Jolly good then!

It's pretty hot up that way, but if you go at night, you should be fine. Good luck...


RE: Hydrogen is a BAD idea
By ven1ger on 10/23/2013 8:44:38 PM , Rating: 2
Reclaimer made no comment about the production, distribution and consumption. But he still is correct about the abundance of hydrogen.

The fact is that oil is a finite resource or is getting very difficult to extract. We have to look at alternatives for our energy needs and since hydrogen is virtually limitless, any production, distribution and consumption of hydrogen would be virtually limitless once we can harness the use of hydrogen.

I don't understand people's issues with hydrogen, but yet have no problems with fissionable materials. Fissionable materials are thousands of times more dangerous than hydrogen, but we are able to harness fissionable materials, are we that clueless that we can't harness the power of hydrogen or we just have boisterous naysayers?


RE: Hydrogen is a BAD idea
By Reclaimer77 on 10/24/2013 12:48:15 AM , Rating: 2
I don't understand the stigma against hydrogen either. Especially coming from the pro-EV alternative energy crowd. Maybe they're just pro-Tesla? I don't know.


RE: Hydrogen is a BAD idea
By Mint on 10/25/2013 2:05:32 PM , Rating: 2
It's not a matter of stigma. It's about practicality.

To store 5kg of hydrogen (enough for ~300 miles), you need 25 scuba tanks (80-cu-ft, 3000 psi, ~30 lbs each). Increasing pressure reduces volume (even then, it's far bulkier than the 4-inch battery slab in the Model S), but not mass (walls need to be thicker). So we'll have to go to carbon fiber, and now we're getting into dangerous structures:
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/...
And we still have to include the weight/size of the fuel cell system.

You talk about the abundance of H, but to make H2 the most economical process currently is natural gas reforming. But with an EV, you can drive twice as far by putting that same natural gas into a CCGT plant. Electrolysis is even worse.

Chargers are an order of magnitude cheaper infrastructure issue, too.

There's no doubt in my mind that within a decade, we'll be moving to nuclear power, whether fusion (huge recent advances in inertial confinement and dense plasma focus) or, more likely, molten salt fission (uranium or thorium).


RE: Hydrogen is a BAD idea
By foxalopex on 10/24/2013 12:48:45 PM , Rating: 3
Oil is made up of Hydrogen and Carbon chains. Both also very abundant in our universe but that has nothing to do with how easily it's found on our planet. Using your logic, this means Oil is limitless, we just need to find a magic way to make it right?

Hydrogen is NOT found naturally on our planet. It is too light so any free hydrogen tends to float into space. So the problem with Hydrogen is that you need to produce any that you require. There is no known easy way to produce Hydrogen except by using natural gas. But if you're going to use natural gas, why in the world wouldn't you burn that to begin with?

The EV crowd and most scientists recognize that electricity is already a part of our lives. We've mastered producing electricity and as the years go by we're getting more efficient at producing it. Where I live, we're mostly powered by hydro-electric dams so in a sense, my Volt is powered by moving water. We're familiar with batteries as they power a lot of electronic gizmos and it isn't a hard shot to realize that they could power our cars too.

Compare this to Hydrogen. Pure hydrogen is found nowhere in our day to day lives. I think the only place I've ever heard of it being used is if you're a welder. Hydrogen is common in water but I don't think anyone in their right mind believes that you can just pour water into your car and it will magically work right?

Car companies promoting hydrogen for two reasons. They first want to pick an alternative technology so impractical that it completely kills the dream to go there. It's like your friend telling you, you need to climb Mount Everest before you can climb a small hill.

Second the other dirty secret they never tell you is that hydrogen is produced by natural gas because trying to produce it with water is so inefficient, you're better off charging a battery. So your "hydrogen" car is actually a very overpriced "natural gas" car. This puts you back in the same boat as an oil car. So what was the point?


RE: Hydrogen is a BAD idea
By Griffinhart on 10/24/2013 1:55:05 PM , Rating: 1
quote:

Oil is made up of Hydrogen and Carbon chains. Both also very abundant in our universe but that has nothing to do with how easily it's found on our planet. Using your logic, this means Oil is limitless, we just need to find a magic way to make it right?

What an odd and totally useless argument to make. He in no way suggests that Oil is limitless.

quote:

Hydrogen is NOT found naturally on our planet. It is too light so any free hydrogen tends to float into space. So the problem with Hydrogen is that you need to produce any that you require. There is no known easy way to produce Hydrogen except by using natural gas. But if you're going to use natural gas, why in the world wouldn't you burn that to begin with?

Another useless point. Gasoline isn't found naturally on our planet either, yet it has somehow managed to work for us.

There are also far more ways for producing Hydrogen without resorting to oil or natural gas. It is also possible to produce it through methane from landfills and coal. These have the benefit of being the current cheapest methods, however there are plenty of other existing and emerging technologies for producing it. There are dozens of ways through water splitting tech, and there have been some very promising advances in using biomass to produce it.

quote:

The EV crowd and most scientists recognize that electricity is already a part of our lives. We've mastered producing electricity and as the years go by we're getting more efficient at producing it. Where I live, we're mostly powered by hydro-electric dams so in a sense, my Volt is powered by moving water. We're familiar with batteries as they power a lot of electronic gizmos and it isn't a hard shot to realize that they could power our cars too.


The idea of powering a car with electricity isn't the point. Both fuel cell and batteries use electric motors to drive the car.

It's about addressing technical issues that would make either vehicle a viable replacement for Gasoline powered cars. That means being able to charge or fuel them quickly and away from home.

EV's have many issues here. The current range on a charge is very limited, especially cars like the Volt. The range further drops dramatically in various environmental conditions. You can pretty much halve the expected range in the winter in cold states. Sure Musk has his "quick battery swap" station idea, but like any Hydrogen concept, it too has to build a massive distribution system. One can reasonably argue that currently existing infrastructure can roll in hydrogen into the existing systems for far less cost and effort.

quote:

Compare this to Hydrogen. Pure hydrogen is found nowhere in our day to day lives. I think the only place I've ever heard of it being used is if you're a welder. Hydrogen is common in water but I don't think anyone in their right mind believes that you can just pour water into your car and it will magically work right?

No one expect it to either. But you seem to think that you are magically able to plug in an EV and charge it anywhere. Even though Electricity is ubiquitous in today's world, it doesn't mean you have unlimited access to it and can just plug in anywhere you feel like.

quote:

Car companies promoting hydrogen for two reasons. They first want to pick an alternative technology so impractical that it completely kills the dream to go there. It's like your friend telling you, you need to climb Mount Everest before you can climb a small hill.

No one is saying that.
quote:

Second the other dirty secret they never tell you is that hydrogen is produced by natural gas because trying to produce it with water is so inefficient, you're better off charging a battery. So your "hydrogen" car is actually a very overpriced "natural gas" car. This puts you back in the same boat as an oil car. So what was the point?

Hello pot, have you met kettle?

As I mentioned, Hydrogen production isn't just from natural gas, it's simply the cheapest current method.

And let's not forget the dirty little secret that only about 9% of electricity produced are from renewables. So, EV's are essentially in the same boat.

I don't claim to know if Fuel Cells are ever going to become truly viable, but a hydrogen based system has MANY advantages over an EV system.

There has even been some interesting work with burning hydrogen in ICE's meaning that current auto designs can be easily adapted.

There is also some interesting work with storing Hydrogen in low pressure solid state materials.


RE: Hydrogen is a BAD idea
By Reclaimer77 on 10/23/2013 8:55:31 PM , Rating: 2
And this is your idea of a more intelligent post? Wow...


Batterys
By Ahnilated on 10/23/2013 2:43:10 PM , Rating: 3
Lets talk about the massive mess you get into making the batteries and the even worse mess made disposing of them. You can't call something greener when the process to make and destroy them is horrible.




RE: Batterys
By toffty on 10/23/2013 3:54:11 PM , Rating: 4
This was true for older battery types, but current car chemistries are much better. Also the fact that Hydrogen cars will still need large batteries makes your argument pointless.


RE: Batterys
By Mint on 10/25/2013 2:09:37 PM , Rating: 2
Well said, and on top of that, there will be battery recycling. There isn't much economical incentive to recycle a $5 phone battery, but there is for a $5-10k EV battery. You can't recycle the stuff that comes out of a tailpipe.


Musk like Wozniak
By purerice on 10/23/2013 8:25:42 PM , Rating: 2
Why does it seem that seemingly every time Steve Wozniak opens his mouth it is to either to decry how disappointed he is with every new Apple product, an Apple movie that did not invite him to participate in, or to claim how his ideas are so much better?

Why is it also that seemingly every time Elon Musk opens his mouth it is to decry a substitute technology to his or to claim how his ideas are so much better?

Their words come out as poorly scripted heels in WWE. Hydrogen fuel cells don't likely have much of a future in automobiles but his blabbering about them comes across as somebody who did not do any research on it but that talking with enough confidence will get people to believe that he knows what he's talking about.

What I gather is that Musk has wrapped his ego, his identity, and sense of self worth into Tesla being a success via electric engines (and no other method of power) and is scared Skittles that anything else may be a threat. If anything ever did prove to be more efficient, safe, and marketable than electric, Tesla would have to adjust. That adjustment would mean that Musk would have to admit to being wrong once in his life. To him it would be the end of the world.

Thousands of scientists around the world are working on hundreds of new types of energy. They don't deserve the disrespect that Elon Musk throws at them. If he had more class he would realize that too. Or maybe he just can't help himself.




RE: Musk like Wozniak
By coburn_c on 10/23/13, Rating: 0
RE: Musk like Wozniak
By flyingpants1 on 10/24/2013 5:23:42 AM , Rating: 2
Well, ebay payments are a near-universal standard in e-commerce, so he succeeded there.

The people gun works fine in advanced simulations, it's not made of magic. He would build it himself but he's too busy running electric lotus and tax rocket.


I don't get it.
By CZroe on 10/23/2013 11:21:01 PM , Rating: 2
Why is he acting like the technologies are mutually exclusive? I imagine a trunk-sized modular fuel-cell for cross-country driving that refills like gasoline at the same supercharger stations that can't do a full charge at each stop.

Of course, you might want to use your trunk space during a long trip like that, but... still.




RE: I don't get it.
By flyingpants1 on 10/24/2013 5:40:01 PM , Rating: 2
He's not, and they're not. He said today's batteries are already better than any future fuel cell technology could ever offer. By the time fuel cell becomes anywhere near affordable, we'll likely have even better batteries.


fuel cells still developing
By DocScience on 10/24/2013 5:16:20 PM , Rating: 2
Fuel cells and other forms of flow batteries are still developing.

At current, yes, Musk is right.
But I doubt he will ALWAYS be right.




By ehDelgadillo on 10/24/2013 10:26:39 PM , Rating: 2
Using Fossil fuel has provin Damaging to the environment, Electric cars are the Answer, However now that he has imported Apple VP , as if matters and Now that his focus is on Germany where historicly many inventions and scientist have came from we will see in the extream near future a new
electric force like magnetics but not the same which will be extreamly powerfull and percise. the implamentation, of several programs will be used to,Kerlin Imagery,Radair,& Kumbalini of coarse they will have slightly differant aka's I have personally experianced Kumbalini so I now its real
Kerlin imagery is sold at festivals & radar well we all know. If there were to be elections for United Nations President I would Vote for Mr. Elon Musk




So are electric....
By overlandpark4me on 10/29/2013 9:47:21 PM , Rating: 2
I love the tard's that come out and say they are helping the environment by owning an electric car. Where do these idiots think electricity comes from. For the "slow", it's coal.




Elon Musk is full of Bullsh*t
By GREENLOVER on 11/23/2013 11:06:54 AM , Rating: 2
Why would anyone with a real green heart say something like this about other clean opportunities? Be suspicious of anyone who does!

No fuel cells aren't perfect yet but at least you can drive 600k with it and fill up the tank in only 3 minutes. Instead of standing next to the road with your empty battery supercar and waiting at least 30 minutes before you can drive an other 150k with it. No more range anxiety!

Hydrogen is a carrier (storage) of energy and will be produced cheaply anywhere by solar and bacteria. That's why an infrastructure will start to appear.

New ways of storage and cheap fuel cells of hydrogen will come. Graphene, less Platinum and solidstate ( without pressure tanks) will be part of the solution. Its lighter then just battery cars and less polluting to produce. All big car manufacturers are currently working on Hydrogen vehicles. It's a huge step to leave behind 100 years of combustion technique development. Engine technique is the biggest distinctive feature between them. To let go of their earnings model and be part of a future where everything is insecure, where new car makers (like Tesla) can easily pop-up because electric is much simpler, shows guts.

Everyone should see through Elon Musk's cheap smear campaign to protect his interests. He makes wonderful cars but for a small elite. Why? Long range heavy batteries are expensive almost as expensive as lighter fuel cell systems. But everything will change, lab research is promising. To bad for Elon's ego if he gambled on the wrong horse but any green solution is our future, embrace it don't block it like the electric car 100 years ago.

Time will tell but i'll bet Tesla's stock will drop before 2018 unless he is smart and incorporates the next generation fuel cells in his future models.

Lucky he is too late to jeopardize the future but stop slowing it down! ;-)

http://www.businessinsider.com/george-clooney-wasn...

http://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com

No my English isn't perfect but how is your Dutch?




Some facts
By Jonas Blomberg on 10/25/13, Rating: 0
*boom*
By Motoman on 10/23/13, Rating: -1
RE: *boom*
By lagomorpha on 10/23/2013 1:37:53 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
And hydrogen likes to explode a lot.


So do lithium ion batteries :D

Hydrogen actually tends to float away faster than it explodes because it's so light and most actually comes from natural gas not by cracking water though if there were a huge demand that might change.


RE: *boom*
By Motoman on 10/23/2013 1:41:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So do lithium ion batteries :D


Yeah, but mostly only in iThings.

But seriously, the point is taken but I think it's an unavoidable fact that storing, transporting, and handling pure hydrogen is a lot more problematic than carrying around lion batteries.


RE: *boom*
By chmilz on 10/23/2013 1:47:03 PM , Rating: 5
Also, there's the fact that the entire planet has electricity distribution systems, and none of the planet has hydrogen distribution systems.


RE: *boom*
By Shig on 10/23/2013 1:57:37 PM , Rating: 2
Hydrogen has always been a gimmick. Back in the early 2000s GM had just brought out the EV1 and oil companies were scared. They lobbied California to ditch EVs and go to hydrogen, knowing that it was always a dead end.


RE: *boom*
By EnzoFX on 10/23/2013 2:16:46 PM , Rating: 2
No doubt they want to replace the current ecosystem of ICE's, where it costs a lot to regularly service vehicles, etc etc.


RE: *boom*
By maugrimtr on 10/25/2013 10:01:29 AM , Rating: 2
Hydrogen has a lot of problems:

1. You need to generate it which, due to simple conservation of energy, means it costs more power to create than it eventually outputs. This concern is irrelevant for hydrocarbons which have a stable state as crude oil.
2. Fuel cells are inefficient - a lot of the energy output is lost as waste heat so it's not the best energy transport. Efficiency for fuel cells is 60% at the high end. Lithium ion batteries are 90% at the high end.
3. Hindenburg! Hydrogen is a volatile gas with a low ignition point which likes to explode. In a crash, it won't pour out of a tank - it will billow out as a gas. Even air containing 4% hydrogen is combustible. A 40% mix would explode really well (hydrogen combusts into water - so you know what the perfect Hydrogen to Oxygen ratio must be to produce the best fireworks :P).
4. There is no large scale hydrogen transportation network. That's not to say it's not transportable - one source suggests 700 miles of piping already existed in the US. There is however an electricity network reaching almost every single home in the nation.
5. Energy density. Lithium Ion has a high energy density for a battery with improvements under research. Hydrogen is a light weight gaseous element - a single atom is literally one proton and one neutron. You can liquify it at extremely low temperatures (uses more energy) or compress it (uses more energy though not as much!) but it's still far off from batteries which are both dense and have far better energy efficiencies. Transportation and storage can make use of both approaches (e.g. transport as a compressed gas, liquify on site, return to gas and compress for vehicle fueling). Each state change towards a liquid requires more energy to perform.

So, basically, hydrogen is nowhere near being competitive at this time. To fuel cars, you need a cheap and clean method of generating it (otherwise what's the point?), a safe way of economically transporting and storing it in bulk, and bumped up safety features for the cars to prevent piercing of high pressure tanks or fuel cells.

For the moment at least, Elon Musk is quite right.


RE: *boom*
By JKflipflop98 on 10/25/2013 7:06:57 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, it's not like you can use the power output from a nuclear generator to crack water into hydrogen or anything. Nah, lets keep burning coal and deal with all the radioactive fly ash. Because there's already wires there. Derp.


RE: *boom*
By jimbojimbo on 10/23/2013 2:56:32 PM , Rating: 3
The oil corporations know that oil won't last and they want to control the infrastructure for hydrogen cells like they do now with oil. They know that that battery operated cars can be recharged by the user at home easily and with solar no less. They also know that for an owner to refuel hydrogen cells they must buy it from refueling centers since the equipment to not only produce but compress hydrogen safely would be far too expensive for owners to buy on their own. By controlling the infrastructure for hydrogen they'll continue to get rich regardless.


RE: *boom*
By Reclaimer77 on 10/23/13, Rating: 0
RE: *boom*
By slunkius on 10/24/2013 1:10:47 AM , Rating: 2
not disputing/supporting original theory, but..

why old billionaires keep investing, accumulating wealth? they will be dead in a decade, why bother making their empires even bigger, when they can just relax in their private islands? why Buffets, Adelsons, etc. are still working?


RE: *boom*
By Reclaimer77 on 10/24/2013 1:23:55 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
why old billionaires keep investing, accumulating wealth?


Because they get an immense personal satisfaction from doing so. There's also a big ego component at play as well, more than likely. And who DOESN'T like more money, even if you don't need it?

Humans at their core are very simple creatures that way.


RE: *boom*
By StormyKnight on 10/24/2013 2:27:36 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
why old billionaires keep investing, accumulating wealth?

Because he who dies with the most toys wins, of course.


RE: *boom*
By tng on 10/23/2013 6:06:22 PM , Rating: 2
All theory, but now that you mention it... who already has networks of convenient stations where getting a hydrogen refill would be ideal? Oil Companies!

Face it, adding equipment to existing stations would be much cheaper and make more sense than building a whole new infrastructure. Hydrogen pumps could be added, holding tanks and the distributors could just add new trucks to the fleet.

I realize that there are those out there that just hate "Big Oil", but face it they have the money and most of the infrastructure in place to do it. There just has to be a need. There is already some experience with this in SoCal with the FCX, where there were special stations (Shell?) where you could refill one with hydrogen.


RE: *boom*
By Mint on 10/23/2013 7:09:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hydrogen pumps could be added, holding tanks and the distributors could just add new trucks to the fleet.
So basically the same cost as building a H2 station from scratch?

The only thing they save is the simple payment/store part. All the other stuff you mentioned are really expensive, and they're not going to invest in it until there are lots of FCVs on the road to get revenue from.


RE: *boom*
By tng on 10/24/2013 1:20:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So basically the same cost as building a H2 station from scratch?
LOL, no.

City zoning and approvals, cost of land in areas where there are already established traffic patterns, Local and sometimes State permits, Environmental Impact studies, etc...

No it is not basically the same cost.


RE: *boom*
By Mint on 10/26/2013 6:48:23 AM , Rating: 2
LOL yes.

Those factors aren't any cheaper for existing gas stations. If you use some of your space for an H2 pump & tank instead of gas, then you lose revenue to pay for land/permits.

H2 and other fuels have their own safety and permit issues. You think a propane tower & pump can be tacked onto any existing gas station without additional permits?


RE: *boom*
By tng on 11/1/2013 4:26:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
. You think a propane tower & pump can be tacked onto any existing gas station without additional permits?
No, but you are making a bad point with that as well.

Propane refill stations in many areas near suburban middle class neighborhoods are very popular. It is not even arguable that they would sell more propane than Hydrogen, yet even though there was a fairly large profit involved, they did not just go out and build a bunch of new stations just to sell it. They leveraged existing gas stations because of land use rules.


RE: *boom*
By Richard875yh5 on 10/24/2013 9:13:53 AM , Rating: 2
If you have natural gas in your home, you can now buy a small machine that converts natural gas to hydrogen. It can not get much more convenient than this. So I think the future really lies in fuel-cell cars.


RE: *boom*
By topkill on 10/24/2013 10:41:10 AM , Rating: 2
Would you mind giving us a pointer to such a beast? We've been trying to find one for a startup I'm involved with and that all sounds good, but I'm very frustrated because the reality is bullshit...you can't go buy a cheap little box to reform natural gas to H2 today.


RE: *boom*
By Nortel on 10/24/2013 10:54:24 AM , Rating: 2
Many Taxi's already run on natural gas... today. The only negative seems to be the large tank required and I suppose the weight.


RE: *boom*
By Reclaimer77 on 10/23/2013 5:16:10 PM , Rating: 3
Ah yes the idiotic oil companies control everything conspiracy theory.

The EV1 was massively expensive to manufacture, and kind of sucked as a passenger vehicle. It was guaranteed to be a sales flop!

That's why it went away!!! Economics, not some dark hand of big oil controlling everyone.


RE: *boom*
By tng on 10/23/2013 5:56:38 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The EV1 was massively expensive to manufacture, and kind of sucked as a passenger vehicle. It was guaranteed to be a sales flop!
And did you ever see one in person? FUGLY! We are not talking Prius ugly, but much worse.

I think that they only put this car out there as a hedge against the CARB mandate that manufacturers that sold vehicles in CA must sell 10% electric vehicles by the Y2K. That mandate failed as well.


RE: *boom*
By SPOOFE on 10/23/2013 11:16:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Economics, not some dark hand of big oil controlling everyone.

Completely true, but just to add a little deeper info: At the time, California's Air Resources Board (oh, how we love them in CA) had their Zero-Emissions Vehicle mandate, which required that the big auto manufacturers offer an electric car in order to do business in the state. One EV, from GM, was offered while the other companies instead pointed out how stupid the mandate was, and the ARB reversed its mandate and suddenly the EV1 became pointless.

It's true that it wasn't an economical vehicle. The only reason it was offered at all was because of stupid legislation that required it exist. Once the law was reversed, the EV1 became completely unnecessary, and GM was so peeved that they had wasted so much effort that they just scrapped everything they had immediately.

Had nothing to do with "the oil companies" and everything to do with a nosy government thinking it can do better simply by passing a few laws. Blame CA lawmakers, not corporations.


RE: *boom*
By Dr. Kenneth Noisewater on 10/24/2013 12:00:38 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong, there's hydrogen distribution systems that have been around for decades if not centuries.

Of course, that hydrogen's locked up with carbon atoms. But piggybacking local gasoline/diesel/natgas reformulation on the existing mature and pervasive HC infrastructure would be a way to go to H2 fuel cell vehicles. And if you could do such reformulation efficiently enough to get say 20kWh out of a gallon of gas, and a fuel cell EV could get 3-4mi per kWH, then you've got 60-80mpg there.

However, if we can't get fuel cells (or onboard solid-oxide fuel cells that accept hydrocarbons directly) down to $60-80/kWh it's economically a nonstarter IMO. The ideal is to have SOFCs of 100kW or thereabouts, which fit within the space required of a typical I4 or V6, and a battery large enough to bring it up to operating temps fairly quickly along with local travel range (say usable 20kWh with plugin).


RE: *boom*
By YearOfTheDingo on 10/23/2013 5:10:48 PM , Rating: 2
Given that hydrogen fuel-cell forklifts are already in wide-spread use, I would say that these technical challenges are largely solved. It's just a matter of cost effectiveness. For indoor commercial vehicles, hydrogen fuel-cell is clearly the technology of choice. Fast turnaround time means the investment quickly pay for itself. The question is whether it'll move beyond that niche.


RE: *boom*
By Mint on 10/23/2013 2:24:00 PM , Rating: 3
Solid chemicals are easy to encapsulate and make relatively safe. Liquids and gases can leak, so they have more destructive worst case scenarios.

H2 may float, but it's also the hardest of all to contain. There are many places it can accumulate inside a car body or cabin if a path is created from an accident or even wear and tear.


RE: *boom*
By Samus on 10/23/2013 9:43:43 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know about you, but I'd take the reinforced, compartmentalized, non-pressurized, non-explosive battery pack over a cylinder filled with 5000psi of anything.

I've seen too many wrecks at the track to know even the highest-spec NFCRC fuel cell with an inertia cutoff & electric kill commonly cause massive fires. If it weren't for NoMex a lot of those guys would have far worse than the 1st degree burns they usually get away with.

And those tanks are under maybe 40psi of pressure. The carbureted vehicles are usually just 5-15psi and we're talking restrictions that require braided steel fuel lines, AN37 fittings and lots of grounding.

Hydrogen can't be made safely portable.


RE: *boom*
By Sivar on 10/24/2013 12:37:38 AM , Rating: 2
Do you believe that fuel cells imply high-pressure compressed hydrogen?


RE: *boom*
By Arsynic on 10/24/2013 11:26:36 AM , Rating: 2
And so does gasoline. So I don't see what the point is.


RE: *boom*
By superflex on 10/23/2013 1:58:00 PM , Rating: 5
Right,
We transport propane, ethane, methane, hexane, acetylene and countless other flammable gases in pipelines all day every day.
Same applies for these gases in transport trucks and in cylinders.

Hydrogen is stored in large quantities in many industrial applications without incident. Please cite for me the last hydrogen tank explosion.

Heaven forbid you should shut off the natural gas connection to your house since it also is a flammable gas, senor hypocrite.


RE: *boom*
By Shig on 10/23/2013 2:02:45 PM , Rating: 1
The problem with hydrogen is that it has to be stored under pressure, while the other fuels you cited do not.

There is a big difference.


RE: *boom*
By cpeter38 on 10/23/2013 2:37:44 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
the other fuels you cited do not
(have to be stored under pressure)

like propane, ethane, methane, hexane, acetylene .

The Vantage pipepline (ethane) engineers disagree with you. They transport at 1440 PSI. I am quite sure that the storage is typically done at significantly higher pressures. Likewise, I haven't seen any non-pressurized propane, or natural gas (methane) vehicles.

Don't believe me, check out http://www.vantagepipeline.com/index.php?option=co...


RE: *boom*
By yomamafor1 on 10/24/2013 10:10:27 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, according to sources, propane turns into liquid at just 127 psi.

Hydrogen, on the other hand, requires 3000 psi or above to keep it from vaporizing, compared to 1440 psi in the Vantage pipeline.


RE: *boom*
By CaedenV on 10/23/2013 3:15:02 PM , Rating: 2
It is one thing for a group of professionals to lug that stuff around, and quite another to have the general public careening down the road at 80mph while stoned and texting on their cell phones.

Pressure or not, still a generally bad idea. Batteries tend to catch fire to be sure, and that is a bad thing, but we have not seen many explode in any hollywood sense of the term.


RE: *boom*
By WLee40 on 10/23/2013 2:48:59 PM , Rating: 2
The Hindenburg. LOL. (incident wasn't funny, the length of time since was).


RE: *boom*
By SublimeSimplicity on 10/23/2013 3:17:08 PM , Rating: 2
That awkward moment when you think you need to tell a German crowd that hydrogen can explode.


RE: *boom*
By Reclaimer77 on 10/23/2013 5:29:10 PM , Rating: 1
Not to spoil your joke, because it was quite good :)

Buuuut, hydrogen actually had nothing to do with the Hindenburg incident.


RE: *boom*
By Captain Orgazmo on 10/24/2013 2:14:56 AM , Rating: 2
It's true, the skin of the airship was what caught fire and burned like mad, but the enormous quantity of secondarily exploding hydrogen surely didn't help either. Human BBQ :(


RE: *boom*
By Mint on 10/23/2013 2:54:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Heaven forbid you should shut off the natural gas connection to your house since it also is a flammable gas, senor hypocrite.
Hypocrite? Since when are natural gas leaks not a safety concern?

There are incidents with combustable gases all the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_propane_explo...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/cn-carries-...

Hydrogen will ignite with 1/10th the energy of gasoline:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_Ignition_Ener...

At least with natural gas, you can put mercaptan in there and smell a leak, but it's possible for H2 to escape through a small leak without any larger gas molecules escaping.

These are all manageable safety issues, but there's substance behind the fears. We do all we can to prevent fires in gas cars, and yet they still happen at a rate of 150,000 per year.


RE: *boom*
By Reclaimer77 on 10/23/2013 5:22:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hydrogen is stored in large quantities in many industrial applications without incident. Please cite for me the last hydrogen tank explosion. Heaven forbid you should shut off the natural gas connection to your house since it also is a flammable gas, senor hypocrite.


Great points.

I wonder if these people realize thousands of people die every year from electrocution. When's the last time you heard of hydrogen killing someone?

Unlike gasoline which is carbon based, hydrogen in its pure form burns no carbon and produces no hot ash and very little radiant heat. It also rapidly rises into the atmosphere, so it has very little time to actually burn.


RE: *boom*
By syslog2000 on 10/23/2013 6:36:44 PM , Rating: 2
Its probably "hundreds", not "thousands". Check out http://www.esfi.org/index.cfm/page/Injury-and-Fata... for the US.

Even if the number is thousands, well, *billions* use electricity every day. So a microscopic percentage might die from electrocution.

Hydrogen is not in general use by consumers, so no real stats for you there.

Please - don't exaggerate. Think of the children!


RE: *boom*
By yomamafor1 on 10/24/2013 10:13:50 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, I don't know...

Maybe Chernobyl?

Or Fukushima if we were unlucky?


RE: *boom*
By flyingpants1 on 10/24/2013 7:00:30 PM , Rating: 2
Lol are you dumb.


RE: *boom*
By FITCamaro on 10/24/2013 1:25:54 PM , Rating: 2
Because gasoline in containers never explodes.


"Well, we didn't have anyone in line that got shot waiting for our system." -- Nintendo of America Vice President Perrin Kaplan














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki