Man with billions invested in electric cars disparages competing technology? I am shocked.<p>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.<p>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.
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.<p>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.<p>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.
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.
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.<p>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.<p>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.
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.<p>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.<p>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.
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.<p>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.<p>Those numbers get even more stark when you add in tank weights.<p>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).<p>I share the BS opinion on hydrogen fuel cells. Hydrogen tanks cost too much, weigh too much and better alternatives exist.
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.
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.<p>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.
Here's Ballard's 10-year stock performance:<p><a href="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" rel="nofollow">https://www.google.ca/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&c...</a><p>Obama cut funding for fuel cell research a few years ago:<p><a href="http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/obama-to-cut-funding-for-hydrogen-fuel-cell-research.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/obama-to-...</a>
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.<p>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.
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.<p>If that's feasible it could simply be a new type of battery, no?