Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Hydrogen vs. Battery

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Nicely stated. Anti-intellectualism has become the main problem in US now.

I know your comment wasn't necessarily directed at me, but I'd like to make it clear that I am not anti-intellectual. My point earlier was that citing that scientists have decided that fuel cells are impractical and therefore they are impractical is by definition an appeal to authority.

Just for the sake of argument, and I know you will tell me that Honda's scientists are tainted by their state of employment, but bear with me... If you hooked the scientists and engineers who worked on the FCX Clarity up to a polygraph and asked them if they honestly believed fuel cells would eventually be practical, would they say yes or no?

I'm willing to bet that some are true believers.

Again, this isn't really a point about fuel cell technology but rather whether the prevailing wisdom is always right. I love criticizing Honda for handling their FCX Clarity program so poorly. But I don't feel right telling them to throw in the towel: the technology sucks, your scientists and engineers are bad for not knowing that. (Or, do they know that but are paid to keep quiet?)

Anti-intellectualism is the main problem in the US? Unintended hyperbole or are you serious?
 
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?
It's an inherently inefficient process even if all the aforementioned hurdles were overcome. No amount of funding will change the basic physics involved. Some of the scientists working in the field have said the same. We should rule them out wholesale because quite likely the money and energy that has been wasted pursuing them could have advanced us farther along in BEV development. Some people say we should try everything, but resources are always limited and it's better to focus on more practical technologies with a higher likely hood of success. Using the same energy you can focus it into a laser beam or disperse it in a flood light, but only one of them can cut through steel.

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?
See above.
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?
In spite of the funding, because of the many hurdles that can't be overcome, and big oil and big auto know this. They make the appearance of an effort, get some government funding thrown in so they don't carry the full costs, and make it appear as if they are trying to do something. This is why I feel it's a waste of time and money to pursue because our money is being used to perpetuate this fantasy. Luckily the current administration has seen through the scam and has cut funding for fuel cell research and pushed more funding for BEV research. Should have happened a long time ago and we'd be further along the BEV path.
 
I know your comment wasn't necessarily directed at me, but I'd like to make it clear that I am not anti-intellectual. My point earlier was that citing that scientists have decided that fuel cells are impractical and therefore they are impractical is by definition an appeal to authority.
It's a suggestion that our positions are backed up by people who have an even better understanding of the issues than we do. Most doctors will tell you smoking is bad because of the scientific research that backs up that position. A few doctors employed by tobacco companies might disagree, who are you inclined to believe?
Just for the sake of argument, and I know you will tell me that Honda's scientists are tainted by their state of employment, but bear with me... If you hooked the scientists and engineers who worked on the FCX Clarity up to a polygraph and asked them if they honestly believed fuel cells would eventually be practical, would they say yes or no?

I'm willing to bet that some are true believers.
Could be, doesn't make them right. They may be more focused on the challenge of solving the technical aspects as opposed to the larger picture.
Again, this isn't really a point about fuel cell technology but rather whether the prevailing wisdom is always right. I love criticizing Honda for handling their FCX Clarity program so poorly. But I don't feel right telling them to throw in the towel: the technology sucks, your scientists and engineers are bad for not knowing that. (Or, do they know that but are paid to keep quiet?)
I have no problem telling them they are wasting their time and challenge them to explain how I'm wrong, but if Honda or any company want's to keep researching fuel cells that's fine. The problem comes when they try to get public funding for their work and for building a hydrogen infrastructure long before a practical vehicle is even remotely possible.
Anti-intellectualism is the main problem in the US? Unintended hyperbole or are you serious?
I'd say he's serious and I'm inclined to agree. My personal theory is a failure of our education system coupled with the inability of some to cope with the technological complexity of modern society. Knowledge is power, and powerful, some people aren't comfortable with it and prefer to close off their minds. Rather beyond the scope of this thread to get into though.
 
Although my bet is on BEVs, I'm not that against some government spending for hydrogen research. There is still potential that it could improve and there are stationary applications for hydrogen fuel cells, even if they don't succeed for transportation.

The biggest problem I have with hydrogen is it still seems like a perpetual experiment and just an excuse to put off trying solutions that can work now. The government has spent roughly $500 million on hydrogen cars and they are still not anywhere near commercially ready; even the amount of test vehicles is limited. Currently, the only way to make hydrogen affordably is with natural gas, which is a fossil fuel and doesn't present a long term solution. Although hydrogen advertises that it can use renewable energy, BEVs are 3-4x more efficient at using that renewable energy. Until hydrogen can be made renewably in significant quantities without relying on electrolysis, it doesn't make sense as a long term energy carrier either (unless we reach the point where we have so much renewable energy we can afford to throw away 2/3 to 3/4 of it).

As for the Honda Clarity, they got a lot of press and they made it sound like they intended to make the first hydrogen car for actual commercial sale. The Clarity is very far from that. The restriction to celebrities shows it is all a PR, green washing move in order to keep selling the same products. Contrast this with Nissan's effort with the Leaf, and GM's effort with the Volt.

Very off topic for the thread, but, for the US, there are two main subjects that illustrate anti-intellectualism or at least distrust in scientists. One is climate change, the other is evolution. In the political sphere, there is the the talk of the "elitist," and how many Americans can't relate to a president which speaks at a college level. The US is also falling behind in education, despite being viewed as the leading country in the world.
 
Let me just say that I love this dialog with you guys. I really appreciate your thoughtful responses and tone.

It's an inherently inefficient process even if all the aforementioned hurdles were overcome. No amount of funding will change the basic physics involved. Some of the scientists working in the field have said the same. We should rule them out wholesale because quite likely the money and energy that has been wasted pursuing them could have advanced us farther along in BEV development. Some people say we should try everything, but resources are always limited and it's better to focus on more practical technologies with a higher likely hood of success. Using the same energy you can focus it into a laser beam or disperse it in a flood light, but only one of them can cut through steel.

Many scientists? Some scientists? My point earlier is that you cannot say "all scientists." You may want to discredit those scientists who believe in fuel cells, but luckily for all of us, they are free to continue pursuing their unpopular field of research. Maybe nothing will ever come of it. But if something does, then fantastic.

I think on this point, we are at an intractable disagreement. I very firmly believe that private entities should be permitted to expend research and development effort into whatever they desire, even if the majority of the scientific community considers it a laughing stock.

When you say "we should rule them out wholesale," my hair stands on end (well, not really). Not to put too fine a point on it, but I vehemently oppose central planning.

In spite of the funding, because of the many hurdles that can't be overcome, and big oil and big auto know this.

Earlier you said, "In this case it helps explain why the technology is not really progressing," and I agree with that! But now you say that the failure is in spite of the funding. Either big oil is trying really hard and failing or not trying very hard and intentionally failing.

To reiterate my opinion: I feel companies are not trying very hard and more or less intentionally failing. They are using fuel cell vehicles as a publicity stunt. So whether or not there is any actual potential in fuel cell technology, we'll never realize it because it's being used as a pawn.

They make the appearance of an effort, get some government funding thrown in so they don't carry the full costs

There's the rub! And here I am absolutely 100% in agreement with you. There should be precisely zero government funding of fuel cell vehicles. Corporate welfare is a cancer on the market.
 
It's a suggestion that our positions are backed up by people who have an even better understanding of the issues than we do. Most doctors will tell you smoking is bad because of the scientific research that backs up that position. A few doctors employed by tobacco companies might disagree, who are you inclined to believe?

I believe and always have believed that smoking sucks. Although frankly, that belief is based more on the fact that I cough and gag when someone is smoking nearby. I didn't need a scientist to tell me that. :wink:

To be clear, as of this moment, I agree with you that fuel cell vehicles are unrealistic and the technology challenges are severe. I would not want to invest any of my own money into fuel cell vehicle R&D. And you guys have given me some good reasons to consider Honda's bungling of the FCX Clarity a blessing in disguise. As a result, I was still in the market when MINI offered up the MINI E field trial.

Where I thought we could not seem to agree was on whether or not Honda or anyone else should continue any research into fuel cell vehicles. I say if they want to, that's fine. I doubt Honda alone will do anything real-world with them.

Could be, doesn't make them right. They may be more focused on the challenge of solving the technical aspects as opposed to the larger picture.I have no problem telling them they are wasting their time and challenge them to explain how I'm wrong, but if Honda or any company want's to keep researching fuel cells that's fine. The problem comes when they try to get public funding for their work and for building a hydrogen infrastructure long before a practical vehicle is even remotely possible.

Finally, here is where I think you and I are aligned. Honda should receive absolutely no public funding for fuel cell vehicle research. Maybe our reasons are different, but the ends are the same. I consider government funding a taint on the freedom of the marketplace. You may see it as better spent elsewhere. In either case, I don't want government money--at least not our country's money--diverted into Honda's research coffers.

I'd say he's serious and I'm inclined to agree. My personal theory is a failure of our education system coupled with the inability of some to cope with the technological complexity of modern society. Knowledge is power, and powerful, some people aren't comfortable with it and prefer to close off their minds. Rather beyond the scope of this thread to get into though.

I'm sorry I poked at this one. I'm going to leave it alone.
 
I know some feel that government funding for any research is automatically wrong but I disagree. Many breakthrough technologies have been pushed by government funded research. Business will usually only research what they feel will bring them short term profits, government funded research can delve further into unusual areas where quick profits are not guaranteed. Yes some money will be wasted in this process but overall learning what doesn't work is quite valuable as well as learning what will work. The key is to not let industry and politics continue to push for funding non viable technologies long after evidence of their shortcomings becomes clear. The problem with government funding is the influence of entrenched industry lobbying for where the funds go. The industry receiving the funds should have no say in what they get. Special interests kept funding for hydrogen, (and ethanol by the way), going long after it should have stopped. It's not a perfect process but I think reform and oversight is the answer as opposed to stopping it entirely.
 
I know some feel that government funding for any research is automatically wrong but I disagree.

Yes, we're definitely on two different sides of that discussion. I think it helped me appreciate your view when it became clear that you were concerned about government funding of any additional research into fuel cell vehicles. As long as the government is going to fund research, I agree it should choose carefully.

I would have preferred Tesla to remain privately funded, but it would have been gross foolishness to reject the money the government was handing out. All considered, I much rather Tesla receive government money than Honda.

Many breakthrough technologies have been pushed by government funded research.

Agreed. Among all of the things we spend tax revenue and borrowed capital on, technology is among the least offensive to my sensibilities. I've been a fan of the return on investment from NASA and several NSF research initiatives. That said, I've seen how the NSF funding process works and it's--how to say this--sloppy. The level of scrutiny and lack of corrective measures for academic dishonesty (at least in the unrelated fields I've had more direct exposure with) leaves a great deal to be desired.

I worry that my tax dollars are being squandered by lazy administrators with very little or no accountability. I've seen them throw gobs of money at asinine and deceptive projects.

But when you look at the annual federal budget and see science & technology research dwarfed by the twin-headed dragon of defense and entitlements, the perspective changes. So I can appreciate your opinion.

The problem with government funding is the influence of entrenched industry lobbying for where the funds go.

All too true, and all too common. It comes about from administrators allocating funds based on the opinions of experts. The experts are, curiously enough, often the ones receiving the grants. What I've witnessed from academia is:

Administrator: "We have a bunch of money, what's new in your field?"
Research professor: "X and Y are new."
Administrator: "Okay, why don't you come up with a plan to research X and write up a report or something. Sound good? Here's the cash."

I grossly simplify the situation, but you get the point. I imagine it's much the same with corporate welfare.

I love capitalism but I hate regulatory capture, corporate welfare, and the whole portfolio of government failure made possible by political capitalism.
 
I really like this exchange between you guys. One thing I feel the need to comment on:

I would have preferred Tesla to remain privately funded, but it would have been gross foolishness to reject the money the government was handing out. All considered, I much rather Tesla receive government money than Honda.

Tesla did not get a hand out from the Government. They did not get a grant--they got a loan. It must be repaid (presumably with interest, although the details have not been disclosed.) I feel this is an excellent way of using of Government funds to push a favored technology. It isn't a tax break--which requires profits to take advantage of, and hard to determine the actual cost to the Government. It isn't open ended--Tesla must pay it back after the loan term. And it isn't without terms--Tesla had some very strict hurdles they had to meet in order to get the loan, and the money may only be used for Model S production, not for the Roadster, and not to line an executive's pocket or pay for lobbying. As far as Government spending goes, this is a model I would really like to see used more often.

One can argue that Tesla could get private loans for this, and thus why should the Government do this for a private company, and indeed there is a point to be made there. But if one feels (as I do) that the Government is supposed to spend money in order to push (or pull, drag, or otherwise influence) technology that can help move the country to a better place, then I cannot think of a better way to do it.
 
You're not much of an optimist, are you? :biggrin:

I'm confused at what you mean about being an optimist...

As far as Hyrdogen vs. Battery, optimism has nothing to do with it. The math doesn't work for hydrogen as a transportation fuel (interestingly, it can work as a generate-in-place fuel). We've done a lot of math right here in this thread.
 
Tesla did not get a hand out from the Government. They did not get a grant--they got a loan.

Thanks for the clarification. I would agree that in the grand scheme, this is as unoffensive as government spending can be. As I said before, government spending on science & technology is so utterly overshadowed by entitlements, interest, and defense spending that it's particularly hard to disagree with it.

When I disagree with government spending on technology, it is out of principal. Being a technophile and fan of Tesla, I love that Tesla and other innovative companies get access to some easy government money to push their research further.

I don't like the way easy money confuses the natural operation of the free market. I don't like thinking that a new proto-Tesla may have reduced opportunity as a result. Private investors will see the government investment in Tesla and rightly deduce that investing in Tesla is now less risky; that is, the risk of private investment in a hypothetical proto-Tesla has increased relative to Tesla by unnatural force.

Think of it this way: While you and I like this loan because we like Tesla, would we like the same loan to Honda for use on fuel cell vehicles? Possibly not. I wouldn't like it because I don't think Honda takes their alternative-drive research seriously. Others here wouldn't like it because they feel fuel cell vehicles are a sham.

Meanwhile, I suspect Honda fans would see things from a different perspective.
 
As far as Hyrdogen vs. Battery, optimism has nothing to do with it. The math doesn't work for hydrogen as a transportation fuel (interestingly, it can work as a generate-in-place fuel). We've done a lot of math right here in this thread.

Not sure I follow. When you say it doesn't work, do you mean it's not economical? Given the unconfirmed hearsay I mentioned earlier--that an FCX Clarity costs something on the order of a million dollars to build--I'd agree. Refueling is presumably expensive as well, at least compared to the electrical recharging we're familiar with.

My remark about optimism was concerning whether or not those costs could ever be reduced to real-world pricing. Not "will," mind you, but could. I'm optimistic that given enough time and effort, there's probably a way that could happen. If I may state JRP3's opinion on the matter for him, I believe he would argue that effort is not a reasonable exertion given the degree of challenge and certainly not if the effort is government funded. In the end, I think he and I agreed that the government should not fund, subsidize, or in any other fashion "invest" in fuel cell research.
 
It's not just the math of economics that doesn't work for hydrogen, the inefficiency of the entire chain, from hydrogen creation to fuel cell conversion, is so high the math of the process means it's a poor use of resources. Just as the efficiency of the entire petroleum chain is inherently so low it only became successful for the short term, (100 years or so), because of the very low cost of very high energy density fuel. 80% of the potential energy in a gallon of gas is tossed away in an ICE as heat, not even counting all the energy expended before the fuel gets into your tank, and the energy used in creating an ICE. It would be more efficient to burn a less refined petroleum product in a generating plant to charge EV's than it would be to further refine the oil into gasoline and burn it in an ICE.
 
Not sure I follow. When you say it doesn't work, do you mean it's not economical?

Can never be more efficient, won't be more economical unless the precious metal content goes down to much less than one gram, will lose the energy density battle on a kWh/liter basis (unless a solid or liquid storage of hydrogen can be done), the fuel is more expensive to transport to depots, etc, etc.

As far as government investment in technology... your probably right... that ARPAnet thingy never went anywhere... ;) Probably because FDR's rural electrification was such a failure... ;D

Though I also agree that hydrogen shouldn't be funded (except that funding it might make more efficient electric plants)
 
It's not just the math of economics that doesn't work for hydrogen, the inefficiency of the entire chain, from hydrogen creation to fuel cell conversion, is so high the math of the process means it's a poor use of resources.

Being inefficient is one thing. "Not working" is an entirely different matter. I hate to belabor the point, but my position is that if there is a way to make the technology affordable to consumers (and I'm not saying there is) by some innovation, why should I decide for the companies that stand to profit from that innovation that they may not do the research necessary to achieve it?

Just as the efficiency of the entire petroleum chain is inherently so low it only became successful for the short term, (100 years or so), because of the very low cost of very high energy density fuel. 80% of the potential energy in a gallon of gas is tossed away in an ICE as heat, not even counting all the energy expended before the fuel gets into your tank, and the energy used in creating an ICE.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you saying mankind should have never researched and developed ICE transportation either because it's so grossly inefficient in its fuel use?

You brought it up. :wink:
 
Yes. I wish they withdrew all the subsidies for oil - then, we will have a level playing field and I'm sure we won't need any subsidies for EVs. Estimates are some $480 a barrel of oil - if not subsidized.

100% agree!

Before I was able to lease my MINI E, there was a period of about a year during which I did not own a car and walked my daily commute. Roughly at that time, a gallon of gasoline was nearly $5 in California. (Incidentally, I plan to do the same between the end of my MINI E lease and the arrival of my Model S.)

I understand the situation with gasoline costs hit some families hard at that time, but I took guilty pleasure watching the cost climb. It came as no surprise that the intensity of dialogue around alternative fuels picked up. I felt very strongly that as gasoline costs crept upward, so would the incentive to research and innovate.

It may sound mean-spirited, but I was actually disappointed when the costs fell again.

From my perspective, the price of oil should not be artificially manipulated by the government. Consumers should be subject to wild fluctuations and crazy peak costs. This translates into higher demand for alternatives, which pushes research and technology.

Right now, Tesla is my favorite horse in this race. But I can envision a world where gas prices are as high as other countries and US consumers are clamoring for alternatives. Tesla could face one or two additional viable EV competitors. The resulting competition would be a win in my book.
 
Being inefficient is one thing. "Not working" is an entirely different matter. I hate to belabor the point, but my position is that if there is a way to make the technology affordable to consumers (and I'm not saying there is) by some innovation, why should I decide for the companies that stand to profit from that innovation that they may not do the research necessary to achieve it?
Companies can research anything they wish and neither you nor I can stop them. However, I wonder how much of their own money they'd spend on it without government subsides propping them up?

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you saying mankind should have never researched and developed ICE transportation either because it's so grossly inefficient in its fuel use?

You brought it up. :wink:
I'm saying that if oil didn't literally flow out of the ground with little effort and contain so much energy ICE transportation never would have developed. Easy access and high energy density, which both equal cheap fuel, made ICE technology viable. Hydrogen will never have both those attributes, let alone one of them. You can't cheat physics.
 
It may sound mean-spirited, but I was actually disappointed when the costs fell again.

From my perspective, the price of oil should not be artificially manipulated by the government. Consumers should be subject to wild fluctuations and crazy peak costs. This translates into higher demand for alternatives, which pushes research and technology.

You are not the only one who was disappointed - but you are quite wrong in how it will work.

Everytime the oil price goes up we will have a recession. The recession reduces oil demand and that brings the price down. If and when the economy recovers, expect the cycle to repeat now that we are in post Peak Oil period (or close to it).

nominalandinflationadju.jpg


BTW, people who want to invest in alternatives don't like wild fluctuations. That will only reduce investment. If we really want to support alternatives as public policy, we should put a floor price on oil prices - though I prefer a 10cent increase in gas tax every month for next 5 years. Afterall this helps keep the extra money within US rather than sending it to ME.
 
You are not the only one who was disappointed - but you are quite wrong in how it will work. Everytime the oil price goes up we will have a recession.

Wait, what? Looking at the chart you posted, it's not the case that every rise in oil price resulted in a recession (see 1987, 1989, 2000, 2003-2007). I think you conflate oil prices with recessions unnecessarily. That they often coincide is ... I think ... coincidental. Is the intent of this chart to suggest the most recent recession was caused by oil prices and not, say, housing?

This feels like an odd diversion, since I don't know what it has to do with anything I said earlier.

Trying to extrapolate why you would bring this up, I am left with this: you are suggesting that we should not allow oil prices to fluctuate unhindered by government control. Doing so might cause recessions.

Is that the point you were trying to make? If so, I'd argue that recessions are a natural part of market cycles and the resulting organic reorganization of investment that occurs over the long-term is what I want. Customers will demand non-gasoline alternatives. Private industry will want to sell those customers something.

BTW, people who want to invest in alternatives don't like wild fluctuations. That will only reduce investment.

That's precisely the point, isn't it? The wild fluctuations of oil prices would drive smart money to move elsewhere, which if what I'd personally like to see.

If we really want to support alternatives as public policy

I don't want to do that. I don't want a public policy about oil at all.