Tesla CEO Elon Musk: Fuel Cells Are 'So Bull@%!#' 479
Frosty P sends this quote from AutoblogGreen:
"Elon Musk is unafraid to speak his mind. Whether he's talking about other players in the electric vehicle space or sub-par reporting from The New York Times, this is a man with few filters. Musk says that fuel cells are not part of the solution that electric vehicles offer for giving up the hydrocarbon addiction. After commenting that the only reason some automakers are pursuing hydrogen technology is for marketing purposes, that lithium batteries are superior mass- and volume-wise for a given range, and that fuel cells are too expensive, Musk capped it all off with the safety issue. 'Oh god, a fuel cell is so bull@%!#,' Musk said. 'Hydrogen is quite a dangerous gas. You know, it's suitable for the upper stage of rockets, but not for cars,' he said."
Hydrogen is indeed quite dangerous... (Score:5, Insightful)
In many regards, but especially to Mr. Musk's business model.
Well, he's not wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
And lithium extraction pollutes the earth (Score:5, Insightful)
They all have their drawbacks, Elon.
That All Depends... (Score:2, Insightful)
Musk's criticisms depends on the particular type of "fuel cell" under discussion, I would think. There are many architectures & designs, some which only create small amounts of hydrogen & oxygen from electrolyzing H2O which is burned almost immediately internally which have a very low likelihood of causing/starting an explosion or fire.
There are any number of devices that could be called a "fuel cell". He may be quite correct in his criticisms of what is being currently proposed as automotive "fuel cells". That does not mean a different type/design of "fuel cell" would not be safe & practical.
It's also somewhat like asking MS's marketing their opinion on the suitability of linux as a replacement for Windows. Musk sunk his money into battery-powered-vehicle tech. You expect a favorable statement about that which could possibly threaten his investments?
Strat
Re:Hydrogen is indeed quite dangerous... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well, he's not wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Rocket fuels (Score:4, Insightful)
'Hydrogen is quite a dangerous gas. You know, it's suitable for the upper stage of rockets, but not for cars,' he said."
You mean like that other common rocket fuel, gasoline, which is used in the Russian R-12 [wikipedia.org] also known as the Scud missile? Yeap, we would never use that in a car.
Re:That All Depends... (Score:5, Insightful)
Musk's criticisms depends on the particular type of "fuel cell" under discussion, I would think. There are many architectures & designs, some which only create small amounts of hydrogen & oxygen from electrolyzing H2O which is burned almost immediately internally which have a very low likelihood of causing/starting an explosion or fire.
Sweet! Does it then use the electricity from the fuel cell to electrolyze more water? Or does it perhaps use it to run a fan, which in turn drives a windmill?
Re:Is Hydrogen more dangerous than other gasses? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hydrogen has a wider range of flammability mixtures than any of those other gasses mentioned.
Unlike propane, hyrdogen liquifies at temperatures too cold for normal use so this storage mechanism is not feasible.
H2 also has a nasty habit of permeating the metal structure of high pressure tanks leading to embrittlement and reduced strength.
These, and other factors, combine to push Hydrogen higher on the list of "dangerous gasses".
Re:Is Hydrogen more dangerous than other gasses? (Score:4, Insightful)
No other gas even comes close...the guy who provides my welding gasses, for example, even acetylyene which has to be dissolved in acetone to be "safe" at any pressure over 15-20 psi - it self-explodes otherwise (those unsatisfied carbon bonds) - can't even get the license to sell hydrogen, it's far too much a hazmat.
Now you want to let joe sixpack work with the stuff in quanity, all over the world? Yeah, it'll solve the population problem anyway. Along with the other stuff mentioned, like embrittlement, no way to liquify it at normal temperatures, a continuous explosive range with any air mixture...inefficient production, energy-wise...long list.
Re:Sorry, But He's a Douche (Score:5, Insightful)
Likewise, I don't recall him making excuses for the car's performance, either the Roadster or the S. There's been a lot of talk about both models and sometimes expectations went a bit overboard. They have a lot to prove, so they're going to defend their product tooth and nail, which honestly is to be expected (and if it were somebody you liked, you'd be the first taking their defence for being gutsy).
Lastly but most importantly, his wrestling with car sales rules in many states is undeniably good. These rules have been bent and twisted to hell and back by the incumbent auto makers and their dealers to make it nigh impossible to compete with any other business model. For a place like Slashdot, with so many promoters of the "FREE MARKET", this thing should cause almost unanimous uproar. Tesla wants to cut costs on incumbent, useless, overpriced dealerships and modernize how cars are delivered, supported and maintained. It may work, it may not work, who knows? Regardless, however, laws shouldn't be designed to stack everything against that model in such a fashion, and saying that it's just whining and not a serious concern is childish at best, utterly irresponsible at worst.
Re:Hydrogen is indeed quite dangerous... (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is that when it gets out of the tank, it's not pure hydrogen anymore.
Re:You can't compare LPG to H2 (Score:2, Insightful)
storing it involves usually involves compressing it to hundreds of atmospheres of pressure
I'm not sure where to put this post, but here seems to be a reasonable choice. What many people who are complaining about fuel cells or hydrogen fuel cells in particular are missing is that there are many schemes to use hydrogen fuel cells that avoid many of the problems mentioned. For instance, there has been a lot of work done to develop H fuel cells which contain a solid material with a very high surface area, swiss cheese, zeolite-like structure which reversibly absorbs hydrogen gas. Some of the potential benefits of this are
1) The H is stored at a condensed phase density at relatively low pressures and at normal temperatures.
2) The cell could provide a controlled release of H at a rate that is suitable to run an engine, but not so great as to cause a great risk of explosion.
3) Because the hydrogen is absorbed in a solid material, even if the fuel cell is violently ruptured, it would not rapidly release a large quantity of hydrogen making the cell potentially much safer than many other competing techs in the event of a vehicle collision.
4) Storage of the hydrogen at low pressure in a zeolite-like material would dramatically reduce the problem of hydrogen diffusion causing brittleness in the fuel cell outer casing.
5) A vehicle which runs on fuel cells could be designed to be refilled by simply swapping out fuel cells, making refilling very quick, safe and convenient.
6) The use of fuel cells to store H means that there need not be hydrogen pipelines built everywhere. Cells could be refilled at a remote power generation station, at a nuclear plant in Baja CA which hydrolyzes sea water for example and then distributed using existing road and track infrastructure. Empty cells could be collected and shipped back the same way. Existing filling stations could be updated with simple dispensing and collecting racks for the full and empty cells.
Obviously, such a H fuel cell does not yet exist, but I thought I would mention the idea just so people don't get too side-tracked by the idea that there would necessarily have to be massive new infrastructure built to accommodate fuel cells.
captcha: prophesy
Re:Hydrogen is indeed quite dangerous... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well yes. The issue with cars is that they use too much energy. The efficiency from the chemical energy in a fuel tank in a combustion engine car to the wheels is about 15%. But the tesla has a efficiency, from battery to wheels, of 88%. and while there is efficiency loss from the power station to the charging point, at least a battery powered car opens up the possibilities of using clean energy sources to charge the car. A roof festooned with solar panels for instance.
So the tesla model S uses a lot less energy, from much more varied sources of energy, and you say it does nothing to solve the problem that cars use too much energy? How about you know what your fucking talking about before you 'summarise' something.
And quit with your accusations of celebrity worship. We dont care about his opinion because hes rich and famous. We care about his opinion because hes CEO of a company that has successfully brought a electric car to market, pretty fucking relevant to this discussion. Oh, while at the same fucking time founding a company that successfully built a orbit capable rocket. There are not a 'great many people' who have done that. And I sure as fuck care more about his opinion than yours.