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.
Re:Hydrogen is indeed quite dangerous... (Score:5, Funny)
Hydrogen gas is quite safe, if a tank is just punctured, it will remove itself harmlessly from the vicinity.
If the tank is ruptured and the gas set on fire, you might set a tree overhang on fire, but the car will avoid most of the damage. Unlike gas that pools under the car in a manner perfect for human BBQ.
Re:Hydrogen is indeed quite dangerous... (Score:5, Funny)
Hydrogen gas is quite safe, if a tank is just punctured, it will remove itself harmlessly from the vicinity. If the tank is ruptured and the gas set on fire, you might set a tree overhang on fire, but the car will avoid most of the damage. Unlike gas that pools under the car in a manner perfect for human BBQ.
This message is brought to you by Ferdinand Graf von Zeppelin and Paul von Hindenburg!
Re: (Score:3)
It wasn't the hydrogen that was the major problem.
Go to
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/previous_seasons/flash/flash.html [pbs.org]
click on The Hindenberg, and go through the little Flash info.. (Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like you can watch this entire episode online.)
Re:Hydrogen is indeed quite dangerous... (Score:4, Informative)
Not really [wikipedia.org]. Among other things, the flame is invisible, which surprisingly is a major safety issue.
Beyond that, the main problems are storing enough of it (because it is so light) for reasonably long times (because it leaks through normal metal tanks).
Re:Hydrogen is indeed quite dangerous... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hydrogen is indeed quite dangerous... (Score:5, Informative)
Did you forget the Hindenberg? Hydrogen can explode, as well as burn. Back to elementary chemistry for you Bubba.
The cause of the Hindenberg incident has never actually been determined. [wikipedia.org] Maybe do a little research yourself before launching the ad hominems, eh?
Thanks for playing.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Hindenburg.
Re:Hydrogen is indeed quite dangerous... (Score:4, Funny)
In that case, I'm going to start calling it the Hyndinbourgh.
Re: (Score:3)
In that case, I'm going to start calling it the Hyndinbourgh.
I'm pretty sure that if you look at a map of England close enough, you'll see locals in that place already sharpening their pitchforks.
Re:Hydrogen is indeed quite dangerous... (Score:4, Informative)
Hindenburg isn't transliterated, it's German, which uses the exact same alphabet as English (with the exception of four additional characters). So spelling does matter.
If you were talking about an Arabic or Chinese name, you'd be correct.
Re:Hydrogen is indeed quite dangerous... (Score:4, Informative)
You don't need to transliterate it, it is written on the side. [msn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Did you forget the Hindenberg? Hydrogen can explode, as well as burn. Back to elementary chemistry for you Bubba.
The cause of the Hindenberg incident has never actually been determined. [wikipedia.org] Maybe do a little research yourself before launching the ad hominems, eh?
Thanks for playing.
What? The fact no one is sure what sparked the fire doesn't invalidate his point that hydrogen can explode/burn.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you forget the Hindenberg? Hydrogen can explode, as well as burn. Back to elementary chemistry for you Bubba.
The cause of the Hindenberg incident has never actually been determined. [wikipedia.org] Maybe do a little research yourself before launching the ad hominems, eh?
Thanks for playing.
What? The fact no one is sure what sparked the fire doesn't invalidate his point that hydrogen can explode/burn.
True; also true is that many people would cite a major disaster like the Hindenburg* in a discussion about hydrogen fuel cells purely as a scare tactic. And, you know - you shouldn't criticize someone else's lack of knowledge when yours is found wanting as well.
* All for you, ericloewe!
Re: (Score:3)
also true is that many people would cite a major disaster like the Hindenburg* in a discussion about hydrogen fuel cells purely as a scare tactic.
The fact that hydrogen is volatile was known when the Hindenburg flew. They said that it was quite safe before the disaster.
Now here we are again, with people claiming that hydrogen is "quite safe."
It is thus not any sort of fallacy or "scare tactic" to cite the Hindenburg disaster, that on the contrary the cite is that we've done the experiment where we use large quantities of hydrogen in the transportation sector already and we've got a result that tells us that hydrogen is by any meaningful measure
Re: (Score:3)
What does that matter? Exactly how ignition occurred doesn't change the fact that it's easy to ignite, and once done it burns with gusto.
Re:Hydrogen is indeed quite dangerous... (Score:5, Informative)
"Hydrogen fires are notable for being less destructive to immediate surroundings than gasoline explosions because of the buoyancy of H2, which causes heat of combustion to be released upwards more than circumferentially as the leaked mass ascends in the atmosphere; hydrogen fires are more survivable than fires of gasoline and of wood. The hydrogen in the Hindenburg burned out within about 90 seconds."
Hydrogen fires are some of the safest to be around. Most of the people inside on the ship at the time survived the Hindenberg disaster. The fire wasn't as deadly as many other transportation accidents with diesel or jet fuel or gasoline.
Re: (Score:3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster#Death_toll [wikipedia.org]
Well, 64% of those on board survived, yeah, which just makes it a somewhat inefficient way to kill people.
Re: (Score:3)
While I hesitate pushing the mythbusters as conclusive (sometimes their scientific method is atrocious), I recommend watching their Hindenburg segment. Seems like it would have burned with or without the powder coating although that made it extra harsh.
http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/hindenburg-minimyth.htm [discovery.com]
Re:Hydrogen is indeed quite dangerous... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Hydrogen is indeed quite dangerous... (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, it's so dangerous I remember them demoing it in elementary school. Indoors. Without so much as warning the fire department. They filled some balloons with hydrogen and then lit them with a match. It was so horribly explosive, students had to stay at least 10 whole feet away. So dangerous, you'd miss the fireball it if you blinked.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You wear a life jacket when fishing? Wuss.
Re:Hydrogen is indeed quite dangerous... (Score:5, Informative)
Did you forget the Hindenberg? Hydrogen can explode, as well as burn. Back to elementary chemistry for you Bubba.
The Hindenberg did not explode. It burned quickly, but most of the hydrogen burned outside of the frame. Of the 97 people on board, the majority survived. Many of those that died were killed by gravity, not heat. As long as your electric vehicle doesn't rely on hydrogen's buoyancy to keep it suspended hundreds of feet above the ground, you will likely be fine. The problem with hydrogen is not safety, but economics.
Re:Hydrogen is indeed quite dangerous... (Score:4, Funny)
Many of those that died were killed by gravity, not heat.
Aircraft disasters don't kill people, gravity does! ;-)
Re:Hydrogen is indeed quite dangerous... (Score:5, Interesting)
The fact is Honda has a fuel cell car that is in many ways more practical than the cars he makes, and from a "save the planet" pov fuel cells are cleaner and simpler to scale up than batteries. Worse still for Musk Honda's car (and a cameo by it's owner, Jay Leno) was featured on the same Top Gun episode as the Tesla sports, he famously attempted to sue TG for an "unfair" review and was (rightfully) laughed out of court. Musk who is definitely smart and rich has decided the best way to compete with Honda has nothing to do with innovation, the best way to compete is to try and scare people by pulling horror stories from his arse..
I like Musk's cars, but they are not "revolutionary" they are simply the state of the art in battery powered cars, which have been around for a century now. I won't be buying any of his stuff, even if I could afford it. The man is a greedy liar who thinks the only way to "win" is to drown the competition's reputation in bullshit and silence critics with a team of lawyers, behaviour I really do not want to encourage with my wallet.
expensively. oil comes from dirt (Score:3)
An electrolysis rig and $200 of electricity will get you $40 of hydrogen, yes.
Oil comes from dirt. What's the point?
Re: (Score:3)
it can be obtained from water (Hydrolysis) no?
Yes, but not efficiently. The round-trip efficiency for (H2O + elec) -> H2 -> (H2O + elec) is less than 50%. The round-trip efficiency for a lithium battery is better than 90%.
Almost all hydrogen used by industry is generated by reacting steam with either methane or coal.
Re: (Score:3)
The hindenburg had about 202,000 cubic metres of hydrogen stored at atmospheric pressure. Wolfram Alpha tells me that would be 1.66 metric tons.
Some googling turned up Toyota SUVs with an 800 kilometre range have a hydrogen storage capacity of 156 litres at 700 bar. Wolfram Alpha tells me that means the vehicle holds 6.1 kilos of hydrogen, or 0.0061 metric tons.
By this reasoning, I determine that 1 hojillion = 1.66 / 0.0061 =~ 272
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting it's *not* stored in a pressurised tank? You'd travel about three foot on that amount of hydrogen.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The location of the tanks is even safer than gas tanks. They're rarely located underneath the vehicle, but rather in the cargo space
Yep, that's the main problem with propane and LNG/CNG-powered cars. Since the big-ass tank is in the cargo space, you now have no more cargo space (or very little).
In most modern gas-powered cars I've seen, the gas tank is underneath the rear seat: it's between the two axles, yet in a space where there's no other practical use for that space. Most car owners like to have a d
Re:Hydrogen is indeed quite dangerous... (Score:5, Interesting)
Whoosh?
That seems to sum up the vast majority of this thread, and the alternative energy debate in a very concise way.
Let me take this opportunity to summarise the thread:
30 pages of people arguing about the safety of hydrogen. 20 pages of people arguing about their opinions of Elon Musk.
Let me now summarise the issue:
A) Danger is not the issue, yes hydrogen tanks are dangerous, but we are talking about private transportation here. If we cared about safety we would have banned all of it decades ago. No one really cares if a few people get torn to pieces by a car.
B) Hydrogen fuel cells are a bad idea because the production of hydrogen is hugely inefficient. The thermal efficiency is only about 50% and that is ignoring the massive compression that would be required for private transport, as well as distribution costs. This means hydrogen powered cars will use significantly more energy than other alternatives, energy that is generated in power stations, mostly through burning fossil fuels. The issue we have with cars is that they use too much energy. Neither Musk's electric cars nor any hydrogen technology currently on the market do anything to change this at all. It is all a huge PR lie so that all the happy consumers will feel good in the fluffy cotton wool illusion that they are saving the planet.
C) Quit the celebrity worship, hundreds of people have quite clearly explained the pro's and cons of hydrogen fuel cells and we should not care more about this guy's opinion just because he is rich and famous. We could care about his opinion because he has a physics degree, but then again there are a great many people with physics degrees who have opinions on hydrogen fuel cells.
Re: (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 e
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Your battery to wheels efficiency statistics conveniently left out the efficiency of the coal power plant that charged the batteries.
I was interested in your arguments up until this. The car batteries are charged by the grid, which can be powered by other energy sources than coal. In The Netherlands, for example, around 10% of energy comes from renewable sources, of which the largest contributors are biomass and wind. This excludes nuclear and imported energy, and production has been growing rapidly for the past decade.
Even if the grid was powered by 100% coal, then coal plants on average reach an efficiency of 28%, while high efficiency
Re: (Score:3)
That must be why they changed the coating and not the gas, then.
The Hindenburg was originally designed to use helium, but a US export embargo at the time meant Germany couldn't get enough helium to fill it. Had that embargo not existed, the Hindenburg would have never burned.
Re: (Score:3)
Sigh. The harsh truth is that big power plants are a huge part of the problem. Loss in transmission and distribution in the developed world is around 6-15% depending on where you live and how you measure it [worldbank.org]. We still generate most of our energy using steam. Most of the heat disappears up flues, and then we use additional energy to heat our homes.
Big central power plants are a stupid idea in the modern world. Lots of small CHP generators around residential areas and a few medium-sized generators around indus
Re:Hydrogen is indeed quite dangerous... (Score:5, Funny)
In many regards, but especially to Mr. Musk's business model.
So, you're proposing that Tesla will face competition from a car that uses alternatives to alternative fuel?
Hofstadter would be proud.
Re:Hydrogen is indeed quite dangerous... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hydrogen is dangerous only because. (Score:2, Interesting)
I recently wrote an article on the ability to extract hydrogen from plants and a discovery by Percival Yang but the results of the discovery means that hydrogen can be extracted from plants at almost maximum efficiency in a low cost enzyme based process. Not only did Zang discover a way of way of extracting the hydrogen but he also went out an a limb and suggested another method using hydrocarbon storage of the extracted hydrogen as a method of holding the hydrogen in a safe and easily extractable form of
Re: (Score:3)
In many regards, but especially to Mr. Musk's business model.
I would say that Elon Musk likely forgets more about hydrogen and fuel cells than you or most people on slashdot will ever learn. SpaceX clearly uses hydrogen as a fuel source, and the use of hydrogen fuel cells dates back to the Gemini program and was used in every single manned NASA mission except for the Mercury flights (which used sealed batteries for power). SpaceX engineers have most certainly looked into its use.
I'll also note that Tesla doesn't really care if fuel cells work or not in terms of the
Re:Hydrogen is indeed quite dangerous... (Score:5, Interesting)
Tesla's charging system is a joke, having to go park in some far off small town and wait a hour for your car to recharge is not a solution to range anxiety
n.b. I own a Leaf.
Range anxiety is real, but subsides pretty quickly when you realize that since your car tops off every day when you get home, you're rarely in danger of exceeding your range -- and that's true even for me, living in a suburb of Phoenix with it's massive sprawl.
While you certainly need to conscious of your driving plans and charger locations, rarely do you have to divert to some far-away location. Most of the time you're driving your car, it's to work and back, or running errands, or out socializing -- and there's a pretty good chance that you're going to end up somewhere where there's a charger already in the front row waiting for you at your destination. There's 232 Blink chargers alone in Phoenix proper and over 500 in Metro Phoenix -- and that doesn't count chargers from the other companies.
You don't go somewhere foreign to charge. You just top off occasionally while you're already doing what you're doing - many times for free.
Re: (Score:3)
I guess my bicycle is not for you either but there is no reason to be anxious about it. You pick the tools which fit your requirements.
Re: (Score:3)
Musk's business model for building power-trains is safe but the whole cars based on lithium batteries is rocky at best. Tesla's charging system is a joke, having to go park in some far off small town and wait a hour for your car to recharge is not a solution to range anxiety.
The Model S can go at least 200 miles between charges (depending on exact model, they have different battery packs available). Most people don't drive that far in a day, with the prime exception being road trips. Most people don't tak
Re: (Score:3)
Many folks don't realize that hydrogen is not the only possibility for fuel cells; there are methanol fuel cells, ammonia fuel cells, and even some fuel cells that use diesel or kerosene (e.g. Cheap Diesel-Powered Fuel Cells [technologyreview.com]). I think the last two use high temperatures (250C) to break the diesel or kerosene down to smaller molecules, then use those directly in the fuel cell.
I suspect that for these types of cells, the key factors would be whether the fuel cell requires exotic or expensive metals like plati
Well, he's not wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In europe, en netherlands in particular we have a gas distribution system for cars. liquified petroleum gas is already safely implemented in many cars without any major incidents. It's sold by all gas stations except those in city centers. So transport, en storage is not a real big issue.
The simple fact that you can quickly pump gas into a car versus hours of charging is a huge advantage if you want to drive beyond the action radius of a single charge.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Additionally, a huge percentage of the methane piped around the country as natural gas escapes from leaks and bad seals. Hydrogen, being much smaller than a methane molecule, would escape even more rapidly.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't say.... I hear that won't be true for much longer though... [oilprice.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting. Those sound like the same problems that batteries have: the main source of electricity is fossil fuels, and the need for infrastructure for charging stations.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The new infrastructure needed for charging stations is not anywhere near as great as would be needed if we switched to fuel cells for cars.
Re:Well, he's not wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There's work being done on alcohol fuel cells (so far, only methanol). They're a lot less efficient than hydrogen fuel cells. But if we can increase their efficiency and get them to worth with ethanol, then we'll have a way t
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with electric cars will always be the range/refuel problem. While it's true around town traffic isn't too much of an issue, corridors like I10 and I8 between Phoenix/Tucson and the San Diego/LA need at least one central station between them for people to fill up.
The Nissan Leaf has a 24kWh electric battery that advertises 75miles range. Tha
Re:Well, he's not wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How do you measure cost?
Wind, solar, hydro, nuclear mostly.
And lithium extraction pollutes the earth (Score:5, Insightful)
They all have their drawbacks, Elon.
Re: (Score:3)
That's one of the reasons that they want to mine lithium in the Atacama Desert and the Lago Po'opo salt pan. There's no natural ecosystem to destroy, not even bacteria in some places, no water table to contaminate, no rain runoff. Of course the main reason is the high concentrated ore, and so far the only obstruction is the Bolivian government's insistence on safe working conditions for miners and refinery workers (to the enormous distress of mining companies, who are used to treating workers as disposabl
Re: (Score:3)
Other kinds of fuel cells (Score:3)
His comment applies only to hydrogen fuel cells. There are other kinds, and they offer higher energy storage densities. Don't let this guy's comments deter from the research.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Must not have really caught on then. I've worked in a few factories and have never seen one. Lots of electrics and the rest propane.
Is Hydrogen more dangerous than other gasses? (Score:2)
We deal with Propane, Methane, and other gasses which seem like they would carry a lot more energy and thus be more dangerous. Does hydrogen have a lower flashpoint or some other quality which makes it more dangerous? We can oderize the gas like the others.
It seems like hydrogen would be the least dangerous gas. At least it burns cleanly and is not poisonous to breathe. Its light, so it would rise into the atmosphere away from people and property and not hang around near the ground.
Is this all about
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: (Score:2)
Does hydrogen have a lower flashpoint or some other quality which makes it more dangerous?
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.04.012
Limits for hydrogen leaks that can support stable flames, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy Volume 34, Issue 12, June 2009, Pages 5174–5182
Hydrogen is an unusual fuel. It has a high leak propensity and wide flammability limits, 4–75% by volume. Among all fuels, hydrogen has the lowest molecular weight, the lowest quenching distance (0.51 mm), the smallest ignition energy in air (28 mJ), the lowest auto-ignition temperature by
a heated air jet (640C), the h
What's the debate? (Score:2)
I'm inclined to agree (Score:3, Interesting)
I've seen hundreds of researchers work to try to come up with a car-ready inexpensive fuel cell that's, if not safe, at least not going to level a block during a fender-bender. The conclusion I came to long ago was that the big car makers pursue fuel cells to avoid explaining why they've not pursued (or actively stalled) the development of electric vehicles. The fact is that electric cars have a much, much greater potential to replace internal combustion engines than fuel cells for the near future.
Even just the fact that infrastructure is basically in place for widespread transportation of electricity and not even on the radar for hydrogen gives electric a huge edge!
I'm not saying the technology might not prove itself within a few decades, but if half of the fuel-cell resources were placed into improving batteries, electric vehicles would be damn near ubiquitous by now. Would anyone argue that the existing automakers really wanted that?
Re: (Score:3)
Really? Did Elon come to your house and ask you to say that? Battery R+D has been going on, they just keep running into energy density limitations vs combustion based designs. It's not like electric cars are some outrageous new idea, we've had them since the late 1800s.
Forget GM and Ford, think abou
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, the battery technology for a true replacement electric vehicle is just getting there now. And by that I mean one that, with the necessary changes to infrastructure, you can take on a road trip with the same basic level of hassle as a gas powered car. The fact is, the model S has a huge battery in terms of weight and size, using the most effective battery technology available in large scale today, and still barely gets 200+ miles on a charge. Yes, you could drop the performance numbers a bit a
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
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?
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: (Score:2)
Elon's Falcon 9 rockets use Rocket Propellant 1 (RP-1) as fuel instead of dangerous gasoline.
Remind me, what's the "snark" tag in HTML5 again?
Re: (Score:2)
So RP-1 isn't gasoline, correct.
Do YOU know what the "snark" tag is in HTML5? I've not been able to find it on the W3C pages.
Hydrogen might be the solution for aviation (Score:2)
and one of the solutions for large-scale electric power grid storage to accommodate massive expansion of intermittent renewables.
We have to remember that the rational premise is we need to cut carbon emissions almost totally out of the economy, and fast, so why not experiment with multiple technologies as alternative energy and transportation infrastructure.
I don't see lithium battery powered intercontinental jetliners on the horizon any time soon do you? And it goes without saying that aviation can't conti
Quandary (Score:5, Informative)
As much as I regard Elon as a self-aggrandising pillock, I have to agree with him here.
The perfect fuel cell as used on spacecraft and the like burns hydrogen and oxygen to produce electricity, heat and water. Fuel cells intended for use on Earth use air rather than pure oxygen for logistical reasons, air is all around us after all, and the resulting exhaust contains nitrous compounds as well as water. Sometimes the NOx, nitric acid etc. corrodes the red-hot fuel cell catalysts which can be an expensive bummer.
Fuels used in fuel cells can range from hydrogen up through assorted hydrocarbon fuels like butane, ammonia, oddballs like dimethyl ether and the like. Adding carbon gets more energy per kilo of fuel but adds CO2 to the exhaust and possibly traces of other interesting chemicals like CO, cyanogens, dioxins etc. and may cause more damage to the catalysts in conjunction with the NOx compounds.
Hydrogen is a piss-poor fuel for vehicles. It's low-density per joule stored, damages ordinary steels through hydrogen embrittlement and in gas form leaks very easily through joints, gaskets and even through the metal walls of containers given a chance as hydrogen is the smallest molecule known, the escape artist of the periodic table. Liquefying it is energy-intensive, it has to be kept very cold and LH2 is also very low density, the least dense liquid known in fact.
This guy is really taking on the Starks persona (Score:2)
Kind of a life mimics art thing. I wonder if he'll go for the Downey Jr. pirate goatee?
Re:I didn't realize he was so direct. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, a CEO with the moral courage to bad-mouth competitors' products. Truly, he's a hero for the ages.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Informative)
There's a bit more to it than that, jackass. [teslamotors.com]
a Model S traveling at highway speed struck a large metal object, causing significant damage to the vehicle. A curved section that fell off a semi-trailer was recovered from the roadway near where the accident occurred and, according to the road crew that was on the scene, appears to be the culprit. The geometry of the object caused a powerful lever action as it went under the car, punching upward and impaling the Model S with a peak force on the order of 25 tons. Only a force of this magnitude would be strong enough to punch a 3 inch diameter hole through the quarter inch armor plate protecting the base of the vehicle.
As well, the firefighters made it worse before they made it better:
"When the fire department arrived, they observed standard procedure, which was to gain access to the source of the fire by puncturing holes in the top of the battery's protective metal plate and applying water. For the Model S lithium-ion battery, it was correct to apply water (vs. dry chemical extinguisher), but not to puncture the metal firewall, as the newly created holes allowed the flames to then vent upwards into the front trunk section of the Model S. Nonetheless, a combination of water followed by dry chemical extinguisher quickly brought the fire to an end."
Re: (Score:2)
Why would the duration matter, unless you think cars being impaled from underneath with 25 tons of force for any duration is normal? Who the hell taught you how to drive?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It was totaled after hitting a large piece of metal at speed. A similar-size gasoline car would have probably killed the driver, and probably caught on fire as well. Did you forget that everyone else is driving around with a tankful of highly flammable liquid in their car?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
He may well be a douch,
Oh, he is.
but he's not the only one out there,
No, but the fact there are other douche-bags on the planet is no excuse for being one.
and he is doing something that will push us in the right direction.
According to you. Me, I fail to see the merit in the concept of having everyone drive around in what is, essentially, a big-ass pile of heavily polluting blood minerals that won't get you to your destination without taking a minimum hour break every couple hundred miles.
Not to mention, even if electric cars are "the right direction," Elon Musk doesn't give half a fuck about that - he's a capitalist, therefore he's in it for the money. If altruistic progress was his goal he'd be selling Teslas at a loss just to get them in the hands of the people who would benefit the most.
Also, it takes considerable effort to get hydrogen gas from dihydrogen monoxide. Perhaps he knows this already?
Uh, that was a dig, not a comparison or question of science. I figured it was obvious.
Lithium does not have to be mined for blood money (and there's probably lithium in the screen you're looking at, so you're a murderous hypocrite). The new chargers will work in twenty minutes from empty.
Now go watch a video of him being interviewed or giving a tour of SpaceX. He literally walks around naming all the parts off the top of his head and knows what they do. Name any CEO capable of that. First, the man really is a genius. Second, he's actually quite down to earth. Saw him get very emotional about
Re: (Score:3)
Every organization/organism, from the smallest flea to the Salvation Army (and GE) has to take in more than it puts out. It is the way of life, just as it is the way of all social systems. In Capitalism we call that profit, a non-profit calls it 'reserves', a household usually calls it 'savings'. if your local free food pantry agency doesn't bring in more (in the form of donations of goods and money, plus government assistance), the lights will get turned off and everyone will go home, or back under the f
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
While I will agree that Elon has about all the charm and tact of the average fanboy around here I will say that your calling him out over his claims that hydrogen gas is dangerous because hydrogen is an element to be found in water is about as dumb as it gets.
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: (Score:3)
Malarkey - I've actually seen the episode, and not only do they not put the car through anything more rigorous than other cars tested, Jeremy Clarkson (you know, the guy who would rather have his testicles eaten by a million angry bees than compliment an electric car) actually praised both the car and the company at the end of the show.
Not to mention, a wheel really did lock up at speed and almost kill the Stig, which Tesla readily admits did happen.
I'm specifically talking about the bit where they push the car around. It's been revealed that the whole thing was faked and the car did not inaccurately report remaining charge nor actually fail to do the whole run, they just filmed it like that anyway. I've not watched the whole thing (not a UK resident, not a car fan, and most certainly not a Top Gear viewer), but what I have seen of it points at a fair amount of "malarkey", as you say. I'm not saying the Tesla was perfect, remember? Just that Top Gear d
Re: (Score:2)
Well it sure as hell ain't a ferret!
Re: (Score:2)
Is to Mr. Musk already a verb?
Re: (Score:3)
Actually no. Most commercially available hydrogen is produced by steam reformation of methane (natural Gas). Electrolysis of water is far too inefficient to use on a commercial scale.
Re: (Score:3)
And no that is not optional.
Sure it's optional. It may or may not be a good idea (that's a separate topic), but the choice is pretty plainly available. Considering that when dinosaurs roamed and ferns grew 20 feet tall and dragonflies had two foot wingspans, the mean global temp was from 3 to 10 degrees hotter than it is now, and Antarctica had trees growing on it, it's not all bad. Things might be kinda tough for most of us humans and probably a lot of other species, but there are encouraging indications that the increased CO2 is