Tesla CEO Elon Musk: Fuel Cells Are 'So Bull@%!#'

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."

Comments

Re:Sorry, But He's a Douche

[CanHasDIY]

He's got a massive ego, there's no denying it, but your rebuttal is quite terrible. The whole fiasco surrounding Top Gear was bad, but the Top Gear guys have their fair share of the blame: they did do this so that the car would end up behaving as they wanted it to behave (ie. badly), not as it actually did. It may be comedy, but it's still misrepresentation, and we are all fully aware that electric cars (or basically anything but a fuel car) is going to have to fight an uphill battle for adoption, so why make it harder for no good reason beyond your own obstinate vision of a car being noisy, gas guzzling machines?

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.

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.

So, he did but didn't overspeak the features of the vehicle then renege? Not really 100% what you're trying to say here.

Lastly but most importantly, his wrestling with car sales rules in many states is undeniably good.

In reference to the Texas fiasco, no - it would be undeniably good if he was trying to get the law changed because it's wrong, but that's not the case - he was trying to get a special exception made for his company, and fuck everyone else.

Just like one would expect from a self-serving capitalist.