Slashdot Mirror
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."
In many regards, but especially to Mr. Musk's business model.
But the danger of fuel cells is not so much from the hydrogen storage part, you can engineer around that - ffs lithium batteries can burn too, and they carry their own oxidizers to do it, it's more from the fact that the cheapest source of hydrogen will be from gasification of fossil fuels, and from the fact that hydrogen via electrolysis is horribly inefficient, and then you actually have to build an infrastructure for the hydrogen distribution...
They all have their drawbacks, Elon.
He's like the Linus Torvalds of the automotive industry!
There's a bit more to it than that, jackass.
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."
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
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.
Fuel cells have been a "promise" for decades. Heavy investment and R&D has not yet come close to yielding a product the mass market can make use of. They will be relegated to niche markets unless some tremendous breakthroughs occur.
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?
Hey mate, spare a sig?
'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 also known as the Scud missile? Yeap, we would never use that in a car.
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 storage. It wouldn't have the ability to go boom with car accidents and wouldn't require huge temperatures to extract the hydrogen. It would be safe or safer than lithium batteries. It would however require a beginning startup period where electric batteries would be required for the first 15 minutes of vehicle operation.
This discovery met ALL of the long term goals of power density, including an equivalent to 300 to 500 mile power density.
So in short I think Mr. Musk is wrong.
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?
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.
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?
Yeah, a CEO with the moral courage to bad-mouth competitors' products. Truly, he's a hero for the ages.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
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".
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.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
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 highest laminar burning velocity in air (2.91 m/s), and the highest heat of combustion (119.9 kJ/g). Hydrogen flames are the dimmest of any fuel. Hydrogen embrittles and attacks metals more than any other fuel.
Mind you, this is from researchers generally inclined towards the use of hydrogen.
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?
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That's complete bullshit! Everyone knows that fairies don't fart. Those are unicorn farts my boy!
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
An electrolysis rig and $200 of electricity will get you $40 of hydrogen, yes.
Oil comes from dirt. What's the point?
68% of the power in the USA is generated by fossil fuels. source It's why you can half jokingly refer to electric cars as "coal cars", since they're essentially filling up with 37% coal-derived electrons. The lithium ion batteries come with their own environmental costs during their creation, as well. The primary function of today's electric cars is to perform an "out of sight, out of mind" on your carbon footprint. Tesla's cars are toys for rich people who as kids, cleaned their room by shoving everything under their bed.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
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 did some not-so-great things to prove a point.
So, he did but didn't overspeak the features of the vehicle then renege? Not really 100% what you're trying to say here.
I remember a lot of people thinking that the mileage figure was being overrated because you couldn't do that at -30C in the snow or that the batteries could never, ever catch fire or other such things. Exaggerations, basically, which I'd blame equally on Tesla's boasting and on critics' misrepresentations.
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.
I can't find a source that says that, amusingly enough. What I did find seems to point at an exemption made for "American-owned manufacturers who exclusively make electric vehicles". To me, this sounds tailored to actually pass. Anything broader and the TADA would jump in guns blazing saying how they're destroying America. They're already opposing the bill with such a ludicrously small scope, imagine if the American-owned restriction wasn't there or the electric restriction wasn't there? Texas happens to be both ultra-patriotic and an oil baron's paradise, what did you expect?
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 the "perversion of democracy" that other automakers are going to to try to stop him. His college education is specifically for designing batteries, not what you pursue to get filthy rich, he's just good at what he does (and very lucky). They actually don't patent any of the the SpaceX technology, that greedy bastard. And lastly, no one said he's trying to be altruistic. And altruism isn't also suicidal.
Course, I actually know what I'm talking about instead of just spreading ICE automaker FUD.
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 freeway overpass. Even governments and countries (government + the people and institutions) have this. If a nation spends more than it takes in, eventually it will be destitute, subject to revolution or takeover.
TL;DR: Profit is not a dirty word. Many, many people (myself included) are the type who are willing to bet some part of their assets, time and energy to make something cool happen. In my case it is commercial space development. If my associates and I succeed, according to the best analyses the mean standard of living of people worldwide may increase by as much as a factor of 10. And in the process, my heirs or some foundation (I'll be too old to see most of the benefits) will get a piece of the action.
In sum, Musk has shown in several ways that he does care about this stuff. He's not blowing over $1 billion on SpaceX because he's in it for the money - . he was betting that what he believed was a viable project. There's no better way to focus one's mind than to put a big chunk of everything you own on the table. After PayPal he could just retire to an island somewhere and play tennis all day. He's doing it because he believes in it. Making money at it separates the doers from the dreamers, and proves your idea and your plan were good. If SpaceX succeeds, Musk will live in history not as a guy who made a bunch of money, but a guy who used that money helping to lift humanity off this rock.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
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.
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun