-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Hydrogen vs. Battery
- Thread starter siry
- Start date
Someone (probably a shill) dredged this up on Autocar's forums:
Car expert blasts hydrogen
Great headline!
Car expert blasts hydrogen
Great headline!
Don't why Gizmodo keeps featuring this company's products:
HydroFILL Squeezes Electricity Out of Your Tap Water
Fortunately most of the comments (if you include the non promoted ones) are quite sensible.
HydroFILL Squeezes Electricity Out of Your Tap Water
Fortunately most of the comments (if you include the non promoted ones) are quite sensible.
Take this for what you will, but my opinion on hydrogen fuel cells versus battery electric has little to do with the technology, but rather the players involved. As long as Honda remains the only player in hydrogen fuel cells, I doubt we're going to see the forward movement we'd like to see for a while.
Before leasing the MINI E, I was infatuated with the Clarity and attempted to get into their leasing program. What a grossly-mismanaged fiasco. Basically, if your celebrity cache is D-list or lower (mine is presumably F), you're not interesting to Honda. The dealers I contacted were utterly clueless about the Clarity despite being immediately nearby Honda's headquarters in Torrance California. They were entirely disinterested in me and my desire to learn more about and ultimately lease a Clarity. When I later heard that a small handful had been given to celebrities, I decided that Honda's vision for the Clarity was incompatible with my wallet.
Before leasing the MINI E, I was infatuated with the Clarity and attempted to get into their leasing program. What a grossly-mismanaged fiasco. Basically, if your celebrity cache is D-list or lower (mine is presumably F), you're not interesting to Honda. The dealers I contacted were utterly clueless about the Clarity despite being immediately nearby Honda's headquarters in Torrance California. They were entirely disinterested in me and my desire to learn more about and ultimately lease a Clarity. When I later heard that a small handful had been given to celebrities, I decided that Honda's vision for the Clarity was incompatible with my wallet.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I'd say the realities of the physics and economics involved are finally being realized and most people are giving up on fuel cells and hydrogen for personal transportation. The lack of forward movement is quite logical and exactly what I'd like to see for an inefficient technology that would likely be largely controlled by oil companies. There is a reason most hydrogen fueling stations have an oil company logo on them.
You're not much of an optimist, are you? :biggrin:
Technology-wise, I like some of the attributes of hydrogen fuel cells and I wouldn't rule the technology out in the mid-to-long run. In 10, 15, 20 years? The economy of scale could ramp up at some point making this an eventual reality where it is presently an expensive fantasy. I'm under the understanding--although based only on hearsay--that each Clarity costs somewhere in the realm of a million dollars to build. This would certainly explain why there are so few being leased. The lease payment barely covers insurance for one quarter of the cell stack. Silly.
I just don't see Honda moving this technology in the right direction alone. They have been bungling it for years and show no sign of changing their course. Clarity was to be the first FCX for us regular people. That hasn't quite worked out.
Other manufacturers probably regard this technology as overly risky given Honda's flailing. But who is to say that some uppity upstart up-and-up following in Tesla's footsteps won't eventually start pushing this forward with a little more pizazz?
I don't like the oil companies either, but surely you would not be offended if in 35 years' time, Chevron's business were predominantly hydrogen sales rather than oil. How long would you be able to hold your grudge?
Technology-wise, I like some of the attributes of hydrogen fuel cells and I wouldn't rule the technology out in the mid-to-long run. In 10, 15, 20 years? The economy of scale could ramp up at some point making this an eventual reality where it is presently an expensive fantasy. I'm under the understanding--although based only on hearsay--that each Clarity costs somewhere in the realm of a million dollars to build. This would certainly explain why there are so few being leased. The lease payment barely covers insurance for one quarter of the cell stack. Silly.
I just don't see Honda moving this technology in the right direction alone. They have been bungling it for years and show no sign of changing their course. Clarity was to be the first FCX for us regular people. That hasn't quite worked out.
Other manufacturers probably regard this technology as overly risky given Honda's flailing. But who is to say that some uppity upstart up-and-up following in Tesla's footsteps won't eventually start pushing this forward with a little more pizazz?
I don't like the oil companies either, but surely you would not be offended if in 35 years' time, Chevron's business were predominantly hydrogen sales rather than oil. How long would you be able to hold your grudge?
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Frankly I'm quite beyond the mindset of having to go to a station to pay for fuel controlled by narrow interests with random price fluctuations. Early on in my research for alternate transportation methods I looked into hydrogen and fuel cells. It didn't take long to see all the basic problems involved. The great things about BEV's is electricity can be created by various methods, including at home, and stored in different battery chemistries. I don't see the physics of hydrogen and fuel cells changing any time soon. Just think of it this way, I built a BEV in my garage at home, as have thousands of others. No one is building hydrogen fuel cell vehicles at home. Which vehicle is more likely to be practical and viable? BEV's are cheaper to make and the refueling infrastructure already exists for the most part. There is no infrastructure at all for hydrogen. As you point out the fuel cell vehicles that have been built are insanely expensive, far beyond any prototype EV. I realize this is a long thread but there are pages and pages here pointing out all of the shortcomings of fuel cells, hydrogen creation, transportation, and storage. Billions have been poured into fuel cell technology and all we have to show for it are ridiculously expensive test vehicles and no infrastructure. In the same time period with much less funding EV's are being sold today with many more on the way. Hydrogen for personal transportation is unlikely to ever become practical, short, mid, or long term. This is not just my personal opinion but also the opinion of many scientists working in the field. Of course they're probably in cahoots with those shifty climate researchers to kill this wonderful technology.
Honda isn't the only manufacturer to spend (waste) billions into the dream that is the fuel-cell automobile. If I remember correctly, GM was the biggest proponent building over 100 SUVs for the Project Driveway.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/10/gm-launches-pro.html
Mercedes was one of the first manufacturers to start testing fuel-cells in cars. Their first model was a van where the fuel-cell took the space of the entire cargo area. Even Hyundai, Toyota and Ford developed several working units.
The problem is they are all currently way too expensive and always 10-15 years down the road. (never mind the infrastructure issue) With 10-15 years of serious development money, BEVs have a much better chance of being financially feasible compared to Hydrogen, and the infrastructure already exists.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/10/gm-launches-pro.html
Mercedes was one of the first manufacturers to start testing fuel-cells in cars. Their first model was a van where the fuel-cell took the space of the entire cargo area. Even Hyundai, Toyota and Ford developed several working units.
The problem is they are all currently way too expensive and always 10-15 years down the road. (never mind the infrastructure issue) With 10-15 years of serious development money, BEVs have a much better chance of being financially feasible compared to Hydrogen, and the infrastructure already exists.
*...must...control...the giggles*
Is that a problem? I thought that was the whole point?
Battery technology could get a shot in the research arm, so to speak, from the wider-scale adoption of electric vehicles. If that happens, or even if battery technology continues to evolve at its current pace but charging stations become available, the most compelling argument given by fuel cell supporters is moot.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the two main upsides I've heard cited by fuel cell advocates are quick refilling (assuming the infrastructure) and an essentially infinite lifetime for the cells themselves.
More efficient batteries, availability of commercial charging stations, or a combination of the two counter the first point. And on the second point, I suspect we'll see batteries with much more longevity fairly soon.
On the point of self-sufficiency, JRP3, I completely agree. Even using grid power, I have no desire to ever deal with gas stations (of any kind) again.
That said, I'd rather keep an open mind. Perhaps an innovation will allow home production of hydrogen. My point was that Honda seems to be using the Clarity as a publicity vehicle rather than an actual effort to make fuel cell technology a reality. If the technology is ever going to move somewhere, it will require a player willing to seriously attack the problem of getting real cars into the hands of real people. That won't be easy, but I don't think Honda is even motivated to do so (see Elidille, "I thought that was the whole point?")
Tesla has been attacking that problem with battery electrics and still hasn't--by my measure--been successful since the Roadster is well beyond attainability and the Model S is still at least two years away. I'm optimistic in Tesla.
If there were a Tesla of hydrogen, we may see something come of it. But as long as Honda is the name that comes to mind when you say "fuel cell car," I'm not optimistic.
I know you kid, but citing the opinions of scientists is just an appeal to authority. I'd rather not preemptively shoot down any chance some innovative chemist or engineer may have. Honda's failure (and GM's and Mercedes') may just mean those companies suck or at least suck at this. Efforts so far seem more driven by publicity and politics than by a real profit motive.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the two main upsides I've heard cited by fuel cell advocates are quick refilling (assuming the infrastructure) and an essentially infinite lifetime for the cells themselves.
More efficient batteries, availability of commercial charging stations, or a combination of the two counter the first point. And on the second point, I suspect we'll see batteries with much more longevity fairly soon.
On the point of self-sufficiency, JRP3, I completely agree. Even using grid power, I have no desire to ever deal with gas stations (of any kind) again.
That said, I'd rather keep an open mind. Perhaps an innovation will allow home production of hydrogen. My point was that Honda seems to be using the Clarity as a publicity vehicle rather than an actual effort to make fuel cell technology a reality. If the technology is ever going to move somewhere, it will require a player willing to seriously attack the problem of getting real cars into the hands of real people. That won't be easy, but I don't think Honda is even motivated to do so (see Elidille, "I thought that was the whole point?")
Tesla has been attacking that problem with battery electrics and still hasn't--by my measure--been successful since the Roadster is well beyond attainability and the Model S is still at least two years away. I'm optimistic in Tesla.
If there were a Tesla of hydrogen, we may see something come of it. But as long as Honda is the name that comes to mind when you say "fuel cell car," I'm not optimistic.
I know you kid, but citing the opinions of scientists is just an appeal to authority. I'd rather not preemptively shoot down any chance some innovative chemist or engineer may have. Honda's failure (and GM's and Mercedes') may just mean those companies suck or at least suck at this. Efforts so far seem more driven by publicity and politics than by a real profit motive.
Actually, one of the issues with the current generation of fuel-cells is their life expectancy isn't quite up to where the manufacturers would like. They are sensitive to impurities in the Hydrogen and their MTBF is shorter that the average car life expectancy. So not only do they have to get the cost of the cells way down, but they have to improve their longevity. Don't forget that a 10,000 psi tank to store the hydrogen is also VERY expensive.
That leave the ONLY advantage of quick refilling.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Howabout2,
Actual fill times for hydrogen are often not that fast. You're trying to force a gas into a tank and as it gets closer to full the pressure differential drops and flow slows down. Only really high pressure systems can fill a tank quickly. The lack of infrastructure means refueling is almost impossible, let alone quick fueling. As for fuel cell lifetime my understanding is quite different than yours. They use expensive catalysts and membranes that breakdown and need replacement. As has been mentioned it's not simply one technological breakthrough that is necessary for fuel cells. Safe storage density is still an issue. Don't know about you but I don't think I'd ever want to ride around in a vehicle with highly pressurized hydrogen. The pictures I've seen of an exploded CNG vehicle are bad enough. The recent explosion during a Praxair hydrogen refueling, by a trained technician, makes me question the general public handling this stuff. Then there is the transportation problem, for similar reasons. Then we have the hydrogen generation problem. Basically 4 different technological breakthroughs need to happen for fuel cell vehicles to have any hope. We won't see a Tesla of hydrogen. Tesla took existing products and put them together in a way that worked. DIY EV builders had basically been doing the same thing for years, (the home built White Zombie will still blow away a Roadster on the strip.)
As for citing scientific opinion as an appeal to authority, I'm not even sure what you mean. I can't understand where this blanket distrust in scientists come from but they are the experts in their fields and they usually know what they are talking about. They don't just sit around giving opinions, they research and experiment and observe and report results. Other scientists check the data and recreate the experiments and results. Certainly it's not perfect but it's proven a fairly reliable means for advancing knowledge and technology. It is very rare that some rogue individual comes up with a breakthrough that changes the understanding of physics. Not saying it's impossible, but improbable, and not what I would hang my hopes upon for the future of transportation. Generally when we need something fixed, be it plumbing, health issues, vehicular problems, we usually turn to experts. That's what scientists are, experts in their fields. If you're having a heart attack are you going to rely on a trained Dr. with a science backed education or some tinkerer who thinks he knows better?
Lastly, I'd say it's quite obvious that hydrogen fuel cell research has been largely driven by profit motive. Oil companies are terrified of a true BEV revolution as it will leave them in the dust. Automakers are reluctantly moving towards EV's (except for a few like Nissan who gets it), because they will likely be left behind if they don't. They know that they will likely miss out on a large amount of parts and service since mechanically EV's are so simple and properly designed electronics should need little service. There is a huge financial incentive for certain groups to make fuel cell vehicles viable, and they have still failed.
Actual fill times for hydrogen are often not that fast. You're trying to force a gas into a tank and as it gets closer to full the pressure differential drops and flow slows down. Only really high pressure systems can fill a tank quickly. The lack of infrastructure means refueling is almost impossible, let alone quick fueling. As for fuel cell lifetime my understanding is quite different than yours. They use expensive catalysts and membranes that breakdown and need replacement. As has been mentioned it's not simply one technological breakthrough that is necessary for fuel cells. Safe storage density is still an issue. Don't know about you but I don't think I'd ever want to ride around in a vehicle with highly pressurized hydrogen. The pictures I've seen of an exploded CNG vehicle are bad enough. The recent explosion during a Praxair hydrogen refueling, by a trained technician, makes me question the general public handling this stuff. Then there is the transportation problem, for similar reasons. Then we have the hydrogen generation problem. Basically 4 different technological breakthroughs need to happen for fuel cell vehicles to have any hope. We won't see a Tesla of hydrogen. Tesla took existing products and put them together in a way that worked. DIY EV builders had basically been doing the same thing for years, (the home built White Zombie will still blow away a Roadster on the strip.)
As for citing scientific opinion as an appeal to authority, I'm not even sure what you mean. I can't understand where this blanket distrust in scientists come from but they are the experts in their fields and they usually know what they are talking about. They don't just sit around giving opinions, they research and experiment and observe and report results. Other scientists check the data and recreate the experiments and results. Certainly it's not perfect but it's proven a fairly reliable means for advancing knowledge and technology. It is very rare that some rogue individual comes up with a breakthrough that changes the understanding of physics. Not saying it's impossible, but improbable, and not what I would hang my hopes upon for the future of transportation. Generally when we need something fixed, be it plumbing, health issues, vehicular problems, we usually turn to experts. That's what scientists are, experts in their fields. If you're having a heart attack are you going to rely on a trained Dr. with a science backed education or some tinkerer who thinks he knows better?
Lastly, I'd say it's quite obvious that hydrogen fuel cell research has been largely driven by profit motive. Oil companies are terrified of a true BEV revolution as it will leave them in the dust. Automakers are reluctantly moving towards EV's (except for a few like Nissan who gets it), because they will likely be left behind if they don't. They know that they will likely miss out on a large amount of parts and service since mechanically EV's are so simple and properly designed electronics should need little service. There is a huge financial incentive for certain groups to make fuel cell vehicles viable, and they have still failed.
Thanks for the thorough reply. I can see your point that the complexity of the process is quite a deal higher than battery electric and therefore much more challenging to build into a functional, real-world system. Given your arguments, I'll agree that this technology is struggling for more significant reasons than merely Honda's poor shepherding.
I'm still particularly unimpressed with how Honda has executed, however, and I feel quite distinctly that the Clarity was a publicity stunt. There was absolutely no initiative to get vehicles into the hands of real consumers who would give real feedback. By comparison, whether genuine of intent or not, MINI at least sought out and engaged real-world users.
You're right that Honda would stand to reap a windfall if they were able to make fuel cell vehicles an affordable reality. But I'm of the opinion that rather than attack the problem as a do-or-die, they one-off a few custom-built ones to celebrities and continue cranking the routine profit margin on ICE. On paper, they seem serious about fuel cells, but in behavior they just seem to be doing it to get some positive press.
I think you and I come from different perspectives on science and technology. You are perhaps a realist focused on what is likely to happen and I like to dream about what may be possible, especially when it comes to technology. While you may see my stance as a blanket mistrust of scientists; I see yours as a depressing lack of excitement about the future. I look forward to the ways technology will improve in my lifetime.
For now, I drive a battery electric car; my next car will be the same. Maybe some day we'll have a Mr. Fusion on board. Who knows?
For the time being, I really don't care what vested interests exist as long as the options available to me as a consumer are diverse. To some extent, that's why I say that if fuel cell advocates actually think their technology is credible, they need more players in the market. Honda just isn't convincing me, or anyone else it seems.
I'm still particularly unimpressed with how Honda has executed, however, and I feel quite distinctly that the Clarity was a publicity stunt. There was absolutely no initiative to get vehicles into the hands of real consumers who would give real feedback. By comparison, whether genuine of intent or not, MINI at least sought out and engaged real-world users.
You're right that Honda would stand to reap a windfall if they were able to make fuel cell vehicles an affordable reality. But I'm of the opinion that rather than attack the problem as a do-or-die, they one-off a few custom-built ones to celebrities and continue cranking the routine profit margin on ICE. On paper, they seem serious about fuel cells, but in behavior they just seem to be doing it to get some positive press.
I think you and I come from different perspectives on science and technology. You are perhaps a realist focused on what is likely to happen and I like to dream about what may be possible, especially when it comes to technology. While you may see my stance as a blanket mistrust of scientists; I see yours as a depressing lack of excitement about the future. I look forward to the ways technology will improve in my lifetime.
For now, I drive a battery electric car; my next car will be the same. Maybe some day we'll have a Mr. Fusion on board. Who knows?
For the time being, I really don't care what vested interests exist as long as the options available to me as a consumer are diverse. To some extent, that's why I say that if fuel cell advocates actually think their technology is credible, they need more players in the market. Honda just isn't convincing me, or anyone else it seems.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Absolutely. I see the motivation in two parts, the first being promotion of fuel cell vehicles with the full knowledge they are not going to be practical for a long time, if ever. This gives them and others the appearance of trying to push new "green" technology while still being able to sell their more profitable ICE vehicles for many more years while they "continue" to work on fuel cells. The second is that if they ever do develop fuel cell technology these vehicles will still likely need a good amount of service work, and keep their oil company buddies in control of the "fuel" supply.
To the contrary, I'm quite excited by scientific advancement of new technology and my three phase microprocessor controlled lithium powered EV exists because of it. I expect the technology will continue to improve through the constant work of scientists pushing the envelope and trying new methods. I don't expect some unknown miracle technology to appear out of thin air.
It's quite useful to understand the vested interests that may be promoting a technology. In this case it helps explain why the technology is not really progressing and why if it does progress it will likely actually end up limiting your options as a consumer.
Neither do I. You make it sound like fuel cells are fantasy. They may be impractical now for all of the reasons cited earlier, but you said you can't imagine them being practical in the short, medium, or long term. I'm not necessarily disagreeing, especially since I am not the one to do any research in any of these fields. But I don't see the incentive to simply rule them out wholesale. What do I have to gain from narrowing the options being considered for the future?
Don't get me wrong. It can be very useful to understand the bigger picture, yes. That said, if in some hypothetical future, fuel cell vehicles were affordable and it cost some nominal amount to refill, I would consider them. I suspect I'd end up preferring my battery electric, but why should I preemptively rule fuel cells out? Because theoretically the big bad oil companies funded their research and development?
You said the vested interests help explain why the technology is not progressing. In your opinion, are fuel cell vehicles failing now because of technological limitations in spite of big oil funding or because of big oil funding?
But circling back to my original point: I feel fuel cell vehicles are impractical now in part because the manufacturers aren't even making an honest effort. That's fine, I suppose. And to your point, there's no upstart fuel cell vehicle development because the concept is so complex.
Similar threads
