TheBeastie
1 MW
. not relevant anymore.
Why Elon Musk hates Hydrogen fuel cell
- Thread starter TheBeastie
- Start date
TheBeastie
1 MW
Some people have talked about Hydrogen as something thats almost evil and shouldn't be pursued at all because its all dead in the water technology thats just un-viable in terms of actual energy efficiency due to electrolysis, required precious metals and fancy needed equipment etc.
But it if this story below is true then the tables might have turned on hydrogen once and for all.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26204-watersplitter-could-make-hydrogen-fuel-on-mars.html?cmpid=RSS|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|online-news#.VBQW-UqSyNA
But it if this story below is true then the tables might have turned on hydrogen once and for all.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-29168381
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26204-watersplitter-could-make-hydrogen-fuel-on-mars.html?cmpid=RSS|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|online-news#.VBQW-UqSyNA
TheBeastie
1 MW
Great video of a car that drives over 2000km in a Hydrogen fuel cell car in one go..I am surprised at the speed there going at as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYUbIdHr7aE
[youtube]AYUbIdHr7aE[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYUbIdHr7aE
[youtube]AYUbIdHr7aE[/youtube]
TheBeastie
1 MW
Thought I would wake up this old thread,
I have come up with 5 things I have realized that might help make the fuel-cell argument.
(1) When using natural gas as your hydrogen energy source it's quite efficient, according to this article https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/11/f27/fcto_fuel_cells_fact_sheet.pdf
Fuel cell vehicles, which use
electric motors, are much more energy
efficient.
The fuel cell system can use
60% of the fuel’s energy—corresponding
to more than a 50% reduction in fuel
consumption compared to a conventional
vehicle with a gasoline internal combustion
engine. When using hydrogen produced
from natural gas, fuel cell vehicles are expected
to have well-to-wheels greenhouse
gas emissions less than half that of current
gasoline-powered vehicles.
^This means any natural-gas sourced Hydrogen fuel-cell car is likely to emit less co2 all up than any Tesla charged from most of the largely fossil fuel electricity grid in Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell#Efficiency_of_leading_fuel_cell_types
quote "
For example, the typical internal combustion engine of a car is about 25% energy efficient.[62] In combined heat and power (CHP) systems, the heat produced by the fuel cell is captured and put to use, increasing the efficiency of the system to up to 85–90%.[42]
In practice
In a fuel-cell vehicle the tank-to-wheel efficiency is greater than 45%"
Engineering Explained has a great "Overall efficiency & emissions" of "Battery EVs vs Hydrogen Fuel-Cell vs Petroleum-cars vs Hybrids-cars", what's interesting is the Fuel-cell EVs are very close to BEVs in distance/emissions efficiency.
https://youtu.be/2rywz73vwKw?t=548
[youtube]2rywz73vwKw[/youtube]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) True total efficiency, when looking at renewable energy its amazing how many "secret costs" there are to its generation and environment, like the total life emissions life-cycle of solar once it's been decommissioned and its materials "recycled".
Look at the Tesla model 3 lithium-ion battery for example.
In this "huge fan of the Tesla model 3" youtube video, he admitted that he is getting less than 50% the promised range because of the cold in Canada. And he's obviously doing everything he can to extend his range like not using the Tesla model 3's heater because he's driving around in full snow clothing gear, he doesn't need any change in clothes to go snowboarding, but he's driving a Tesla..
https://youtu.be/49WftO5L71I?t=1m47s
My argument here is that the efficiency lost in fuel-cells goes into creating heat that can be used for the cars general passenger heater. With lithium-based battery EVs, the heater comes from directly sucking down valuable electricity out of the battery.
Since the Telsa model 3 has come out in mass production and has now gone through North American winter, the series issues/flaws in the lithium batteries which is rather basic common knowledge here on ES has been hitting major mainstream news sites, most of these news websites are typically big Tesla supporters.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/05/tesla-jaguar-and-nissan-evs-lose-power-in-freezing-temps-.html
https://mashable.com/article/tesla-ev-cold-weather-polar-vortex/#pRomEHd8gZqm
https://www.wired.com/story/electric-cars-cold-weather-tips/
Consumer Reports tested its Tesla Model 3 in cold weather and found its range was almost cut in HALF
https://www.consumerreports.org/hybrids-evs/buying-an-electric-car-for-a-cold-climate-double-down-on-range/
Hydrogen with its built-in heat generation from the fuel-cell process (a bit like a traditional ICE car engine) can heat the car's passengers "for free" compared to Lithium battery cars that take a double whammy on sucking power to keep the large battery it-self warm and then on top having to warm up the car's occupants.
So the "low efficiency" attack/claim on Hydrogen cars vs batteries can be argued as levelled out in cold climates. Compared to lithium battery cars it's not all that different if you need heating.
https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2019/03/14/for-electric-vehicles-japan-bets-on-hydrogen/
(2a)
The fact is that a very significant extra amount of co2 emissions are created when making a Tesla battery-pack.
The extra 15tons of co2 is around the equivalent of 10 years worth of regular combustion vehicle driving.
This is why a battery based car will likely always cost more than a combustion car, because you have to pay for more materials and more energy/co2 emitted making the battery, the only things that can hide this is if the carmaker is willing to make a loss-making the car, or there are subsidies (so someone else is helping pay for your car).
https://www.brusselstimes.com/all-news/business/technology/55602/electric-vehicles-emit-more-co2-than-diesel-ones-german-study-shows/
When CO2 emissions linked to the production of batteries and the German energy mix - in which coal still plays an important role - are taken into consideration, electric vehicles emit 11% to 28% more than their diesel counterparts, according to the study, presented on Wednesday at the Ifo Institute in Munich.
Mining and processing the lithium, cobalt and manganese used for batteries consume a great deal of energy. A Tesla Model 3 battery, for example, represents between 11 and 15 tonnes of CO2. Given a lifetime of 10 years and an annual travel distance of 15,000 kilometres, this translates into 73 to 98 grams of CO2 per kilometre, scientists Christoph Buchal, Hans-Dieter Karl and Hans-Werner Sinn noted in their study.
The CO2 given off to produce the electricity that powers such vehicles also needs to be factored in, they say.
When all these factors are considered, each Tesla emits 156 to 180 grams of CO2 per kilometre, which is more than a comparable diesel vehicle produced by the German company Mercedes, for example.
https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=89002&p=1462581#p1462581
https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=89002&p=1460666#p1460666
https://www.wsj.com/video/the-secret-to-why-a-tesla-costs-so-much-hint-batteries/65F3A21D-0837-4DA6-B739-612124815603.html
If you look at the amount of co2 for the various metals that make up a Tesla battery, some of them like nickel commonly cause the creation of around 100 tonnes of co2 per 1-tonne of refined nickel, as making/refining metal is a very energy intensive process. It's then easy to see how the Tesla battery pack has caused 15 tons of co2 during its creation, again this is pre-emitted/locked-in co2. People who claim batteries are efficient are narrow-mindedly only looking at its "after manufactured" results.
Tesla boss Musk's desire for more nickel could be a non-starter
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-metals-nickel-ahome-column-idUSKCN24P1PJ?taid=5f1b238231fdfb0001449cc5
^Elon Musk is constantly pleading for more nickel for his lithion-ion batteries and for the metal to get cheaper.
(3) Some people are willing to pay a premium for convenience, this being the fast refuelling ability of hydrogen fuel-cell cars, you can fill the fuel-cell EV as fast as you can as traditional gasoline combustion cars.
Just like how people go to 7-11 for fast convenience at increased costs instead of Wallmart. I have seen a fair amount of Tesla owners complaining about how annoying it gets after a while waiting to charge the Tesla.
(4) When it comes to truly clean energy, people are vulnerable to red-herrings (meaning people getting distracted from the truth like the Chewbacca defense https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clKi92j6eLE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense), its a fact that in Australias most populated states charging a Tesla via the grid creates more co2 per km then a lot of traditional fossil fuel car models available today, because so much of the electricity is sourced from coal/gas/fossil fuels.
But obviously, people don't care about the truth, rather than how clean it makes them look directly at face value. Despite the fact a Tesla EV charged off the grid in Australia can emit more co2 than combustion cars, the government has added a taxpayer-funded subsidy to encourage Tesla proliferation, obviously because of politics.
It's the same with the cobalt-based lithium cells, I think its been well and truly proven that no one gives a stuff how the product battery materials are sourced to a level I find quite surprising and interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvBiVqKHPPg
[youtube]GvBiVqKHPPg[/youtube]
https://phys.org/news/2019-03-electric-vehicles-failure.html
Fact is that if people can ignore or be distracted from the truth of how their EV is emitting MORE co2 than a fossil-fuel car or the incredibly dubious sources of cobalt for the lithium-battery, then surely the distraction/red-herring reality can be transferred to Hydrogen-fuelcell cars as well, as in it doesn't matter how clean or dirty the car technically really is, as long as it looks clean at the car-tail-pipe point of view.
This is how most folks are and therefore I can't help see it as another plus for Hydrogen-fuel-cell future sourced via natural gas for the near-term future, and if the government hydrogen fuel-cell PDF is to be believed then its technically cleaner method of using natural-gas converted into hydrogen per km via fuel-cell then via traditional combustion engine.
http://www.brusselstimes.com/business/technology/15050/electric-vehicles-emit-more-co2-than-diesel-ones,-german-study-shows
https://www.thegwpf.com/electric-vehicles-emit-more-co2-than-diesel-ones-german-study-shows/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/that-state-where-electric-cars-run-dirtier-than-petrol/news-story/6acc46858d7d3c63e8b110545b25c630
(5) My third argument is long-term, and that is that if Bill Gates really is aiming for a nuclear reactor that is cheaper than coal, and he is aiming Terrapower-Nuclear to be the most logical and economical choice for electricity production for the worlds poorest 20% (Bills words not mine). Then the production of Hydrogen via nuclear might actually be a long-term practical choice, more details on that here https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=89002&p=1405704#p1405704
https://youtu.be/JaF-fq2Zn7I
https://youtu.be/JaF-fq2Zn7I?t=13m24s
^The most important thing part in watching Bills Terrapower announcement video, which starts to get interesting from here.
*Add/Edit/UPDATE*. Bill Gates TerraPower project has had some setbacks so its timeline is long. Longer than the original speech claims had suggested.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/bill-gates-comes-to-washington--selling-the-promise-of-nuclear-energy/2019/01/25/4bd9c030-1445-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2019/01/28/the-energy-202-bill-gates-is-selling-washington-on-the-promise-of-nuclear-power/5c4e33e71b326b29c3778ce0/?utm_term=.408d109eec76
It's clear MSR 4th Gen reactors like the Terrestrial Energy Molten Salt Reactor are going to be up and running well in front of Bill Gates TWR project, this is because MSR is comparatively "already tested" and proven technology from 50s and 60s USA nuclear military experiments.
https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=89002&start=3125#p1438643
Because of gasolines incredible abundance, I think if gasoline can run at a horrid 20% efficiency and still be the worlds most first choice source of energy, then a world where Hydrogen can be made from an ultra-efficient nuclear source is also viable IMO.
(6) This is the final reason I think Elon hates fuel cells, and I think its probably the most important, and that is Fuel-Cell tech is a massive enabler of "flying cars" or vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) electric vehicles, it makes them significantly easy to produce.
VTOL is obviously a long secret wish of Elon Musk, but he knows lithium batteries just do not have any real hope for flying cars, there just isn't nearly enough energy to weight ratio.
Elon Musk wants to build a vertical take-off electric plane
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/elon-musk-electric-planes
While more recently he has come out and said flying cars are evil and a dumb idea, its obvious he just doesn't want anyone else to make them, just three years ago it was his dream!
Hydrogen fuel-cells carries incredible 39,000Wh/kg vs around lithium-ions absolute best of 300Wh/kg. Hydrogen fuel-cells have 100 times more energy for the weight in a perfect scenario.
^ This is the real reason Elon Musk brutally hates Hydrogen fuel-cells, it blows away lithium batteries for flying vehicles by x100 times!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities_ignoring_external_components
I used to imagine the ultimate battery would be a canister of electrons and almost no other "stuff/fluff" to get in the way, with near unlimited cycles. I realized that a cylinder of hydrogen for a fuel-cell is pretty much as close as you get in a canister of electrons.
The fuel-cell quadcopters that can fly for up to 4 hours show the incredible ability of fuel-cells, and I think gives a great window into why Elon hates fuel cells, the only reason why Elon would turn around and suddenly like fuel-cells is if he could own the technology like how he owns the biggest battery plants in the world, its all about how successful competitive edge he can have on his competitors and none exist in fuel-cells.
Elon made electric cars really cool and sexy but the next step is flying cars, even if now that he can't do it, he official hates them, it's no coincidence he officially hates all-electric flying cars, even all lithium-ion battery based ones, because they are not his.
https://youtu.be/AHlrLU7kTys
[youtube]AHlrLU7kTys[/youtube]
https://youtu.be/WZP4u4YP_e4
[youtube]WZP4u4YP_e4[/youtube]
Hyundai sells over 10,000 Nexo hydrogen cars in S. Korea
http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20201030000576&np=1&mp=1
https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/hyundai-motor-companys-hydrogen-fuel-cell-electric-nexo-surpasses-10000-in-domestic-sales/
As fuel-cells ramp up, I look forward to when we see 10,000 of these flying around...
https://youtu.be/L6K7GAG1Aas
[youtube]L6K7GAG1Aas[/youtube]
I am using government URLs here and or summarized data from Wikipedia URLs which is citing science/gov web links again. It would be great if you counter these claims with reputable URLs of your own...
I have been seeing a few Hydrogen-fuel cell cars reviews etc on YouTube lately so I figured I would post some of them.
Interestingly Fullycharged doesn't mention its a fuel-cell car in their headline description.
https://youtu.be/EW7TFXwduYY
Hyundai NEXO | Fully Charged
[youtube]EW7TFXwduYY[/youtube]
I have come up with 5 things I have realized that might help make the fuel-cell argument.
(1) When using natural gas as your hydrogen energy source it's quite efficient, according to this article https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/11/f27/fcto_fuel_cells_fact_sheet.pdf
Fuel cell vehicles, which use
electric motors, are much more energy
efficient.
The fuel cell system can use
60% of the fuel’s energy—corresponding
to more than a 50% reduction in fuel
consumption compared to a conventional
vehicle with a gasoline internal combustion
engine. When using hydrogen produced
from natural gas, fuel cell vehicles are expected
to have well-to-wheels greenhouse
gas emissions less than half that of current
gasoline-powered vehicles.
^This means any natural-gas sourced Hydrogen fuel-cell car is likely to emit less co2 all up than any Tesla charged from most of the largely fossil fuel electricity grid in Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell#Efficiency_of_leading_fuel_cell_types
quote "
For example, the typical internal combustion engine of a car is about 25% energy efficient.[62] In combined heat and power (CHP) systems, the heat produced by the fuel cell is captured and put to use, increasing the efficiency of the system to up to 85–90%.[42]
In practice
In a fuel-cell vehicle the tank-to-wheel efficiency is greater than 45%"
Engineering Explained has a great "Overall efficiency & emissions" of "Battery EVs vs Hydrogen Fuel-Cell vs Petroleum-cars vs Hybrids-cars", what's interesting is the Fuel-cell EVs are very close to BEVs in distance/emissions efficiency.
https://youtu.be/2rywz73vwKw?t=548
[youtube]2rywz73vwKw[/youtube]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) True total efficiency, when looking at renewable energy its amazing how many "secret costs" there are to its generation and environment, like the total life emissions life-cycle of solar once it's been decommissioned and its materials "recycled".
Look at the Tesla model 3 lithium-ion battery for example.
In this "huge fan of the Tesla model 3" youtube video, he admitted that he is getting less than 50% the promised range because of the cold in Canada. And he's obviously doing everything he can to extend his range like not using the Tesla model 3's heater because he's driving around in full snow clothing gear, he doesn't need any change in clothes to go snowboarding, but he's driving a Tesla..
https://youtu.be/49WftO5L71I?t=1m47s
My argument here is that the efficiency lost in fuel-cells goes into creating heat that can be used for the cars general passenger heater. With lithium-based battery EVs, the heater comes from directly sucking down valuable electricity out of the battery.
Since the Telsa model 3 has come out in mass production and has now gone through North American winter, the series issues/flaws in the lithium batteries which is rather basic common knowledge here on ES has been hitting major mainstream news sites, most of these news websites are typically big Tesla supporters.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/05/tesla-jaguar-and-nissan-evs-lose-power-in-freezing-temps-.html
https://mashable.com/article/tesla-ev-cold-weather-polar-vortex/#pRomEHd8gZqm
https://www.wired.com/story/electric-cars-cold-weather-tips/
Consumer Reports tested its Tesla Model 3 in cold weather and found its range was almost cut in HALF
https://www.consumerreports.org/hybrids-evs/buying-an-electric-car-for-a-cold-climate-double-down-on-range/
Hydrogen with its built-in heat generation from the fuel-cell process (a bit like a traditional ICE car engine) can heat the car's passengers "for free" compared to Lithium battery cars that take a double whammy on sucking power to keep the large battery it-self warm and then on top having to warm up the car's occupants.
So the "low efficiency" attack/claim on Hydrogen cars vs batteries can be argued as levelled out in cold climates. Compared to lithium battery cars it's not all that different if you need heating.
https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2019/03/14/for-electric-vehicles-japan-bets-on-hydrogen/
(2a)
The fact is that a very significant extra amount of co2 emissions are created when making a Tesla battery-pack.
The extra 15tons of co2 is around the equivalent of 10 years worth of regular combustion vehicle driving.
This is why a battery based car will likely always cost more than a combustion car, because you have to pay for more materials and more energy/co2 emitted making the battery, the only things that can hide this is if the carmaker is willing to make a loss-making the car, or there are subsidies (so someone else is helping pay for your car).
https://www.brusselstimes.com/all-news/business/technology/55602/electric-vehicles-emit-more-co2-than-diesel-ones-german-study-shows/
When CO2 emissions linked to the production of batteries and the German energy mix - in which coal still plays an important role - are taken into consideration, electric vehicles emit 11% to 28% more than their diesel counterparts, according to the study, presented on Wednesday at the Ifo Institute in Munich.
Mining and processing the lithium, cobalt and manganese used for batteries consume a great deal of energy. A Tesla Model 3 battery, for example, represents between 11 and 15 tonnes of CO2. Given a lifetime of 10 years and an annual travel distance of 15,000 kilometres, this translates into 73 to 98 grams of CO2 per kilometre, scientists Christoph Buchal, Hans-Dieter Karl and Hans-Werner Sinn noted in their study.
The CO2 given off to produce the electricity that powers such vehicles also needs to be factored in, they say.
When all these factors are considered, each Tesla emits 156 to 180 grams of CO2 per kilometre, which is more than a comparable diesel vehicle produced by the German company Mercedes, for example.
https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=89002&p=1462581#p1462581
https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=89002&p=1460666#p1460666
https://www.wsj.com/video/the-secret-to-why-a-tesla-costs-so-much-hint-batteries/65F3A21D-0837-4DA6-B739-612124815603.html
If you look at the amount of co2 for the various metals that make up a Tesla battery, some of them like nickel commonly cause the creation of around 100 tonnes of co2 per 1-tonne of refined nickel, as making/refining metal is a very energy intensive process. It's then easy to see how the Tesla battery pack has caused 15 tons of co2 during its creation, again this is pre-emitted/locked-in co2. People who claim batteries are efficient are narrow-mindedly only looking at its "after manufactured" results.
Tesla boss Musk's desire for more nickel could be a non-starter
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-metals-nickel-ahome-column-idUSKCN24P1PJ?taid=5f1b238231fdfb0001449cc5
^Elon Musk is constantly pleading for more nickel for his lithion-ion batteries and for the metal to get cheaper.
(3) Some people are willing to pay a premium for convenience, this being the fast refuelling ability of hydrogen fuel-cell cars, you can fill the fuel-cell EV as fast as you can as traditional gasoline combustion cars.
Just like how people go to 7-11 for fast convenience at increased costs instead of Wallmart. I have seen a fair amount of Tesla owners complaining about how annoying it gets after a while waiting to charge the Tesla.
(4) When it comes to truly clean energy, people are vulnerable to red-herrings (meaning people getting distracted from the truth like the Chewbacca defense https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clKi92j6eLE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense), its a fact that in Australias most populated states charging a Tesla via the grid creates more co2 per km then a lot of traditional fossil fuel car models available today, because so much of the electricity is sourced from coal/gas/fossil fuels.
But obviously, people don't care about the truth, rather than how clean it makes them look directly at face value. Despite the fact a Tesla EV charged off the grid in Australia can emit more co2 than combustion cars, the government has added a taxpayer-funded subsidy to encourage Tesla proliferation, obviously because of politics.
It's the same with the cobalt-based lithium cells, I think its been well and truly proven that no one gives a stuff how the product battery materials are sourced to a level I find quite surprising and interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvBiVqKHPPg
[youtube]GvBiVqKHPPg[/youtube]
https://phys.org/news/2019-03-electric-vehicles-failure.html
Fact is that if people can ignore or be distracted from the truth of how their EV is emitting MORE co2 than a fossil-fuel car or the incredibly dubious sources of cobalt for the lithium-battery, then surely the distraction/red-herring reality can be transferred to Hydrogen-fuelcell cars as well, as in it doesn't matter how clean or dirty the car technically really is, as long as it looks clean at the car-tail-pipe point of view.
This is how most folks are and therefore I can't help see it as another plus for Hydrogen-fuel-cell future sourced via natural gas for the near-term future, and if the government hydrogen fuel-cell PDF is to be believed then its technically cleaner method of using natural-gas converted into hydrogen per km via fuel-cell then via traditional combustion engine.
http://www.brusselstimes.com/business/technology/15050/electric-vehicles-emit-more-co2-than-diesel-ones,-german-study-shows
https://www.thegwpf.com/electric-vehicles-emit-more-co2-than-diesel-ones-german-study-shows/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/that-state-where-electric-cars-run-dirtier-than-petrol/news-story/6acc46858d7d3c63e8b110545b25c630
(5) My third argument is long-term, and that is that if Bill Gates really is aiming for a nuclear reactor that is cheaper than coal, and he is aiming Terrapower-Nuclear to be the most logical and economical choice for electricity production for the worlds poorest 20% (Bills words not mine). Then the production of Hydrogen via nuclear might actually be a long-term practical choice, more details on that here https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=89002&p=1405704#p1405704
https://youtu.be/JaF-fq2Zn7I
https://youtu.be/JaF-fq2Zn7I?t=13m24s
^The most important thing part in watching Bills Terrapower announcement video, which starts to get interesting from here.
*Add/Edit/UPDATE*. Bill Gates TerraPower project has had some setbacks so its timeline is long. Longer than the original speech claims had suggested.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/bill-gates-comes-to-washington--selling-the-promise-of-nuclear-energy/2019/01/25/4bd9c030-1445-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2019/01/28/the-energy-202-bill-gates-is-selling-washington-on-the-promise-of-nuclear-power/5c4e33e71b326b29c3778ce0/?utm_term=.408d109eec76
It's clear MSR 4th Gen reactors like the Terrestrial Energy Molten Salt Reactor are going to be up and running well in front of Bill Gates TWR project, this is because MSR is comparatively "already tested" and proven technology from 50s and 60s USA nuclear military experiments.
https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=89002&start=3125#p1438643
Because of gasolines incredible abundance, I think if gasoline can run at a horrid 20% efficiency and still be the worlds most first choice source of energy, then a world where Hydrogen can be made from an ultra-efficient nuclear source is also viable IMO.
(6) This is the final reason I think Elon hates fuel cells, and I think its probably the most important, and that is Fuel-Cell tech is a massive enabler of "flying cars" or vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) electric vehicles, it makes them significantly easy to produce.
VTOL is obviously a long secret wish of Elon Musk, but he knows lithium batteries just do not have any real hope for flying cars, there just isn't nearly enough energy to weight ratio.
Elon Musk wants to build a vertical take-off electric plane
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/elon-musk-electric-planes
While more recently he has come out and said flying cars are evil and a dumb idea, its obvious he just doesn't want anyone else to make them, just three years ago it was his dream!
Hydrogen fuel-cells carries incredible 39,000Wh/kg vs around lithium-ions absolute best of 300Wh/kg. Hydrogen fuel-cells have 100 times more energy for the weight in a perfect scenario.
^ This is the real reason Elon Musk brutally hates Hydrogen fuel-cells, it blows away lithium batteries for flying vehicles by x100 times!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities_ignoring_external_components
I used to imagine the ultimate battery would be a canister of electrons and almost no other "stuff/fluff" to get in the way, with near unlimited cycles. I realized that a cylinder of hydrogen for a fuel-cell is pretty much as close as you get in a canister of electrons.
The fuel-cell quadcopters that can fly for up to 4 hours show the incredible ability of fuel-cells, and I think gives a great window into why Elon hates fuel cells, the only reason why Elon would turn around and suddenly like fuel-cells is if he could own the technology like how he owns the biggest battery plants in the world, its all about how successful competitive edge he can have on his competitors and none exist in fuel-cells.
Elon made electric cars really cool and sexy but the next step is flying cars, even if now that he can't do it, he official hates them, it's no coincidence he officially hates all-electric flying cars, even all lithium-ion battery based ones, because they are not his.
https://youtu.be/AHlrLU7kTys
[youtube]AHlrLU7kTys[/youtube]
https://youtu.be/WZP4u4YP_e4
[youtube]WZP4u4YP_e4[/youtube]
Hyundai sells over 10,000 Nexo hydrogen cars in S. Korea
http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20201030000576&np=1&mp=1
https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/hyundai-motor-companys-hydrogen-fuel-cell-electric-nexo-surpasses-10000-in-domestic-sales/
As fuel-cells ramp up, I look forward to when we see 10,000 of these flying around...
https://youtu.be/L6K7GAG1Aas
[youtube]L6K7GAG1Aas[/youtube]
I am using government URLs here and or summarized data from Wikipedia URLs which is citing science/gov web links again. It would be great if you counter these claims with reputable URLs of your own...
I have been seeing a few Hydrogen-fuel cell cars reviews etc on YouTube lately so I figured I would post some of them.
Interestingly Fullycharged doesn't mention its a fuel-cell car in their headline description.
https://youtu.be/EW7TFXwduYY
Hyundai NEXO | Fully Charged
[youtube]EW7TFXwduYY[/youtube]
Hydrogen is a decent option for storage of electrical energy. There are, however, several very serious problems with it.
1) It is the most dangerous fuel we have. It leaks through almost everything, unlike natural gas. It is explosive in a very wide range of concentrations, unlike natural gas. It must be stored under insanely high pressures (3000-5000PSI) unlike natural gas or propane.
2) It is low energy density. If a tanker full of gaseous hydrogen tried to drive halfway across the country to meet a need somewhere, it would use up all the fuel in its tanker just getting there. Hydrogen makes batteries look super energy dense.
3) We don't have any. It all comes from other fuels.
4) The conversion mechanisms (fuel cells) are currently not very good, with low lifetimes, high vulnerability to contamination and lots of required maintenance.
All that being said, there are some very simple ways of making hydrogen safe for use as a fuel.
1) Combine it with one atom of carbon (say from a CCS coal plant) to make methane. Now it's easy to store and transport, and we already have a nationwide network of pipes to do just that. We also have fossil fuel sources of it and renewable sources of it (biogas.) It can be burned or converted to hydrogen via a reformer and used in a fuel cell.
3) Combine it with one atom of nitrogen (from the atmosphere) to make ammonia. Now it's even easier to store and transport. Again, either burn it or convert it to hydrogen for use in a fuel cell.
1) It is the most dangerous fuel we have. It leaks through almost everything, unlike natural gas. It is explosive in a very wide range of concentrations, unlike natural gas. It must be stored under insanely high pressures (3000-5000PSI) unlike natural gas or propane.
2) It is low energy density. If a tanker full of gaseous hydrogen tried to drive halfway across the country to meet a need somewhere, it would use up all the fuel in its tanker just getting there. Hydrogen makes batteries look super energy dense.
3) We don't have any. It all comes from other fuels.
4) The conversion mechanisms (fuel cells) are currently not very good, with low lifetimes, high vulnerability to contamination and lots of required maintenance.
All that being said, there are some very simple ways of making hydrogen safe for use as a fuel.
1) Combine it with one atom of carbon (say from a CCS coal plant) to make methane. Now it's easy to store and transport, and we already have a nationwide network of pipes to do just that. We also have fossil fuel sources of it and renewable sources of it (biogas.) It can be burned or converted to hydrogen via a reformer and used in a fuel cell.
3) Combine it with one atom of nitrogen (from the atmosphere) to make ammonia. Now it's even easier to store and transport. Again, either burn it or convert it to hydrogen for use in a fuel cell.
CSIRO has been doing work on converting hydrogen to liquid ammonia for transportation and converting it back using a vanadium membrane.
However you look at it hydrogen is energy intensive and expensive to produce. Fuel costs for hydrogen 13 US cents per kilometre versus 8 cents for petrol and 3 cents for electricity. The large embodied energy in hydrogen makes the "well-to-wheel" consumption awful - requiring up to five times as much electricity as a BEV to cover the same distance.
I also don't see how it's an advantage to have your vehicle be so inefficient it produces so much waste heat you can maintain the cabin at tropical temperatures even in the coldest places on earth. Just pick a vehicle with a heat-pump and wear a damn coat like a normal human being.
Frankly most of TheBeastie's post above is just a thinly veiled rant against EVs, green energy and promoting coal burning.
However you look at it hydrogen is energy intensive and expensive to produce. Fuel costs for hydrogen 13 US cents per kilometre versus 8 cents for petrol and 3 cents for electricity. The large embodied energy in hydrogen makes the "well-to-wheel" consumption awful - requiring up to five times as much electricity as a BEV to cover the same distance.
I also don't see how it's an advantage to have your vehicle be so inefficient it produces so much waste heat you can maintain the cabin at tropical temperatures even in the coldest places on earth. Just pick a vehicle with a heat-pump and wear a damn coat like a normal human being.
Frankly most of TheBeastie's post above is just a thinly veiled rant against EVs, green energy and promoting coal burning.
Agreed for the most part. I don't think hydrogen as a fuel will make sense in terms of energy balance until we have a better source of it - specifically thermal dissociation of water via high temperature gas reactors (HTGR's.) That is both efficient and a good use of thermal energy. Unfortunately HTGR's are a long way from being reality.Punx0r said:
In the short term batteries will make the most sense as an energy storage medium for EV's. As production is streamlined battery costs will come down, and technologies like PHEV's will greatly ease requirements for battery weight/cost for vehicles.
Yeah, that's a given - along with a good helping of arrogance and condescension against the "idiots" trying to make things better.
markz
100 TW
Elon Musk is unique to say the least 
Eccentric perhaps, yeah!
Alter ego Tony Stark Iron Man
I wonder how much it costs for Biomass Fuel per kilometer. :wink:
Wood is cheap (if not free) and plentiful, better then farmers growing food to convert to fuel.
Insteading of advancing, I say lets go back 8 decades :lol:
All them high gas mileage trucks and suv's out there, by the time fuel prices jump dramatically, maybe one or two will convert.
Ya never know.
I watched a YT video last night on a guy trying to light different fuels.
Heating oil is a diesel and much cheaper then regular diesel. Heating oil is dyed red, much cheaper then regular diesel or farmers diesel. But you get pinched driving with it, big fine. Kerosine is a diesel as well, doesnt turn into a gel until much colder temps, great for nothern burry cold climates.
Eccentric perhaps, yeah!
Alter ego Tony Stark Iron Man
I wonder how much it costs for Biomass Fuel per kilometer. :wink:
Wood is cheap (if not free) and plentiful, better then farmers growing food to convert to fuel.
Insteading of advancing, I say lets go back 8 decades :lol:
All them high gas mileage trucks and suv's out there, by the time fuel prices jump dramatically, maybe one or two will convert.
Ya never know.
I watched a YT video last night on a guy trying to light different fuels.
Heating oil is a diesel and much cheaper then regular diesel. Heating oil is dyed red, much cheaper then regular diesel or farmers diesel. But you get pinched driving with it, big fine. Kerosine is a diesel as well, doesnt turn into a gel until much colder temps, great for nothern burry cold climates.
dustNbone
10 kW
Wood gas is not a good answer. Wood is not free, it's actually quite valuable.
If you're going to make trees power vehicles, I think the best solution is to burn them efficiently in a thermal power plant to make electricity and power EVs with it.
Still probably not a good idea though.
If you're going to make trees power vehicles, I think the best solution is to burn them efficiently in a thermal power plant to make electricity and power EVs with it.
Still probably not a good idea though.
dustNbone
10 kW
There's just not enough trees to consider it as a replacement for the insane amount of energy we consume in the form of fossil fuels. Just during the WW2 years, with a miniscule fraction of the cars on the road that we have now, significant deforestation occurred in Europe largely because of wood gas generation.
Using renewable forests for fuel is basically the same thing as solar power, but with terrible efficiency.
Using renewable forests for fuel is basically the same thing as solar power, but with terrible efficiency.
markz
100 TW
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/09/13/elon-musk-said-tesla-could-drive-itself-across-country-by-one-just-crashed-backing-out-garage/?utm_term=.12e64d5e18ac
3 months to go Elon!
3 months to go Elon!
I agree it's not a 1:1 replacement.dustNbone said:
But there may well come a time when most of our road transportation needs are met by EV's or PHEV's. I use about ten gallons of gas a year in my PHEV. Compare that to the US average of 583 gallons per driver per year. If you cut demand by a factor of 58, then options like wood gas make a lot more sense. (Of course that almost completely solves the gas usage problem as well, so at that point it's not as important.)
Similar threads
