People affiliated with Tesla have often been outspoken about how hydrogen fuel cells are simply a bad solution to the sustainable transport issue. Just last week we reported on Tesla co-founder and CTO, JB Straubel, going on a quick rant about hydrogen and saying that fuel cells will soon be “irrelevant” in the transportation industry. Now another Tesla co-founder, Marc Tarpenning, went a little further than Straubel and called hydrogen fuel cells a “scam”. He also said out loud what many in the industry are thinking – that energy companies are supporting the technology for its inefficiency. "If your goal is to reduce energy consumption, petrol or whatever resource, you want to use it as efficiently as possible. You don’t want to pick something that consumes a lot for whatever reason, and hydrogen is uniquely bad." http://electrek.co/2016/05/23/tesla-founder-marc-tarpenning-hydrogen-fuel-cells-scam/
I think it's ridiculous hype to call them a scam and it's stupidly offensive of him to allege that energy companies want to see an inefficient system implemented. They are not so idiotic. Any inefficient system will be uncompetitive with a more efficient one, so deliberate inefficiency would be a crazy strategy. But I expect any attack on "Big Oil" [boo, hiss] plays well with the sort of alternative, sandal-wearing nutburger types that buy his cars, so maybe that's why he says it. I think there is however a sensible comment in the discussion below the article, by someone pointing out the petrol retailers may be interested in a system that uses their infrastructure of gas stations. But frankly, it is all up in the air: we have several competing technologies to choose from and hydrogen may succeed or not, depending on the extent to which the inefficiencies he speaks of are really fundamental or can be engineered out. The fuel cell has one advantage compared to any sort of heat engine and that is that it can theoretically exceed Carnot cycle efficiency. Whether it does so in practice is another thing of course.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell#Efficiency_of_leading_fuel_cell_types https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell#Efficiency_of_leading_fuel_cell_types I think they attacked fuel ceels on a wrong level. Their efficiency is competitive with other fuel consuming engine types. The "a lot" claim looks unreasonable to me too. Hydrogene has a low density, so to pack a lot of energy into a small volume is difficult for hydrogene consuming systems. But the 2 H2+ O2 -> 2 H2O reaction yields a nice portion of energy. To me the real problem is storage technology - briefly, if there will be electric accumulors of extreme capacity in low volume/low mass or rather small and light high-capacity hydrogene tanks. Currently both, electric and fuel cell cars, are crippled by lacking storage technology. I think, the battle will be won on the storage field.
My son is working on his PhD in the field of fuel cells, so I hope a bunch more Teslas spontenously burst into flames... well not really. In reality fuel cells are not the answer to all our energy needs but there is a use for them. The generation of fuel cells that he is working on can use hydrogen or methane. One use of these types of fuel cells could be utilizing the waste methane that is burnt off at oil wells for direct electrical generation.
That's interesting. Do you happen to have any idea what the efficiency of fuel to electricity conversion is now, for these things?
I can'tell speak to the conspiracy theory allegation, but from an engineering and business standpoint, he'said dead on. Fuel cells aren't viable: that's why there aren't any fuel cell cars to buy! Sorry, no - you are comparing it to the wrong thing, not them. Fuel cells are analogous to battery operated cars and trying to compare efficiency vs efficiency with gas engines is just as meaningless as trying to compare electric motor efficiency to gas car efficiency. On the simplest level, using oil as your primary fuel, you have an input of oil and an output of miles traveled. The details of what happens in between are what determines how many miles you get out. The three methods are, in order of efficiency: Oil->electricity->battery->electric car Oil->gas car Oil->electricity->hydrogen->fuel cell electric car Fuel cells come in last and it isn't even close. Switching the electric power generation to another source adds a wrinkle to the analysis, but the end result is the same.
There is at least one: https://www.toyota.de/automobile/der-toyota-mirai.json?gclid=CMLjnLn68swCFfMW0wodIUUEqQ Surely you can google this in English too. You can produce hydrogene in several other ways too. You don't need to start with oil. In case of elctricity it's the same - you could start with wind power or solar power, you don't need to start with oil. So I think only looking at the oil based production chains biases the picture in ways which are not helpful to the question.
Interesting - I wasn't aware of that car. But it does strain the definition of "mass produced" if they have only sold hundreds and they are not available to the public (per it's wiki page). In any case, the wiki page confirms the worse efficiency: 79mpge vs 89 for the Tesla (which is still not good for an electric: the Leaf is 114). And even then, I don't think mpge takes into account the primary fuel source, but I will have to look into that. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Mirai
The problem of how to get off non-renewable, CO2 producing, car fuel systems economically was solved more than 35 years ago in Brazil: Alcohol from sugar cane is slightly net CO2 negative. It gives slightly more HP in the existing IC engines, which can be converted from gasoline to alcohol for a few hundred dollars - very much cheaper than just the batteries Tesla requires, and a hell of a lot lighter. Big Oil does resist any thing that is a better fuel; but it is not true that switching to alcohol would destroy the rain forests etc. "Slash, burn and move on" agriculture has been practiced globally for centuries. There is now enough abandoned land that could be growing the cane needed for all the world's cars. Sugar cane is a grass and grows well even in poor soil. What switching to alcohol fuel for cars would do is produce millions of new, low-skill, jobs, where many are under-employed or have no job. These new workers (planters and cane cutters) would then become buyers of first world products. A "win-win" for all but Big Oil. To make the switch would require about 10 years. Hundreds of new local distillation centers must be created near the cane growing fields as cane is too bulky and too low in value / ton to be economically transported more than about 120 miles. In the third world, large horse-drawn wagons could be used. By its very nature, sugar cane alcohol production is a local industry. No new technology is required. This is the only sure way and the most economical way to quickly end non-renewable, CO2 polluting car fuel. No one becomes millionaires in a local industry, so there is little support for the switch. The PTB don't want to switch. One more way they screw us and destroy the future of our children. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
http://www.caranddriver.com/toyota/mirai Last 2 para p1: At 10,000 psi, I for one would feel slightly nervous every time a refueling was done. Maybe there is a bevvy of instant-action check valves in place, in case of a catastrophic failure anywhere from pump to to car tank. Maybe not. Then there is the thought of 'what if' - there is a serious road smash that disrupts one or more tanks under 10,000 psi pressure. Hollywood has a plot ready to roll here. Para below pic on p2: So the inherently pricey fuel cost is hidden for early adopters, but for how long? All in all, there seems to be good reason why fuel cell tech has not 'matured' to be truly viable, despite the decades of intensive effort. Maybe that scene in Terminator III where Arny tosses a fuel cell out seconds before it 'goes nuclear' inspired a generation of researchers: Maybe not.
I chose oil for ease of comparison. For just comparing the fuel cell and regular electric car, it doesn't matter what you pick as long as you are consistent (since both typically start with electricity): the pure electric wins. To add gas cars to the comparison, you need to pick other criteria for the comparison to make it meaningful. Just comparing a gallon of gas to a kWh doesn't tell you anything useful. Generally, what I've been seeing (and i'm seeing it from you) is that fuel cell proponents propose vague bases for comparison and then guess at the result. People don't actually do real and meaningful comparisons. That's why fuel cells are so scammish.
Russ, help me understand this. I can quite see that since hydrogen is just a means of transmitting energy, rather than a primary source of it, one has to look at the fuel for the prime mover that generates the electricity to hydrolyse it and consider the whole prime mover fuel to wheels efficiency. But for methane, which comes out of the ground, or from gas hydrates, or from sewage gas, or whatever, surely it is legitimate to compare the fuel cell/electric motor efficiency with a diesel or gasoline engine. Is it not? Or am I missing something?
You could, with even more justification, call battery powered cars like the Tesla a "scam" because batteries are not a source of energy. Fuel cells are a reasonable solution to the problem of EV range. They are perhaps most useful when used to extend the range of a battery powered vehicle, since their fuels (hydrogen, methanol or methane) are currently sourced from fossil fuel sources.
As long as you are comparing natural gas to gasoline, no, you aren't missing anything. If you are comparing hydrogen to gasoline, then you are unfairly skipping several steps in the process.
Let's look at the typical scenario to make it clear. The analysis is really simple for comparing a pure electric to an electric sourced fuel cell: Electricity->battery charger->miles driven Electricity->electrolysis->compression->electricity->miles driven All you have to do to compare them is multiply together the efficiencies of the components. The Tesla S gets 3.4 miles per kWh of charge. Let's use that as the standard for the electric car part, though assume 90% battery efficiency for both charging and release (3.8 mi per kWh generated on release). So for the pure electric, we have: 1 kWh * 90% * 3.4 = 3.1 miles per kWh For a similar fuel cell car, let's be generous and assume 75% compression, fuel cell and electrolysis efficiency: 1 kWh * 75% * 75% * 75% * 3.8 = 1.6 miles per kwh. Feel free to quibble with those efficiency numbers. But they are so far apart, it will never change the result: Pure electric wins. By a lot.
Fuel cells can run directly on hydrogen or methanol; methane can be reformed to hydrogen either on board or at a filling station. (Some can run directly on methane but they are not ready for prime time yet.)
So to extend range, the solution would be methanol in the fuel tank, reformed to hydrogen for a fuel cell. Got it. Not sure what the efficiencies of the processes are, but I can see how they might be favorable.
A range of opinions, some points already covered earlier here: http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1083046_hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars-not-viable-says-volkswagen-ceo (nice line by a commenter: "That's why they call them FOOL SELLs") http://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-bosch-fuelcells-idUSKCN0IY25R20141114 (superior range to BEV's, but not much else in their favour) http://www.greenfuelonline.com/hydrogen (fragility!) http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/04/08/3643876/tesla-toyota-hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars/ (7 reasons why not) http://insideevs.com/fuel-cell-cars-become-economically-viable-2025-evs-viable-today/ ('they will catch up' - but read the comments section) http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/11/20141107-winand.html (upbeat - 'explodes some naysayer myths' - but read the comments section) The naysayers have a much better overall argument imo. Not all bad news for FC's - as things currently stand, future looks promising in areas where outright energy density matters. Like as battery replacements in cell-phones (mobiles where I come from), laptops etc. But there it's going to be solid state FC's, not hydrogen or such.
