Hydrogen vs. Battery

[stopcrazypp]

Engineers don't care whether something makes sense. They only care whether they can do it.

As an engineer like Doug (I'm in software), I don't agree. What I've been taught throughout my studies is that engineers are to take what scientists discover and put them into a practical application (problem solving). We have a similar code of ethics, with the first one being:

1. PUBLIC - Software engineers shall act consistently with the public interest.

http://www.acm.org/about/se-code

So what I'm saying is that there are engineers that do believe that hydrogen cars are going to be practical alternatives to gasoline vehicles, not that simply they believe that they can make them work.

 

[JRP3]

Engineers absolutely do have a responsibility to protect society as a whole, not just to make a particular gadget work. Responsible engineers must pay attention to the consequences of the work they are doing, and that most certainly includes the impact on the environment.

However quite obviously that is not always the case, in fact one might suggest that in the last century the majority of engineering was done with little regard to environmental impact, other than required by regulation.

 

[richkae]

As an engineer like Doug (I'm in software), I don't agree. What I've been taught throughout my studies is that engineers are to take what scientists discover and put them into a practical application (problem solving). We have a similar code of ethics, with the first one being:

http://www.acm.org/about/se-code

So what I'm saying is that there are engineers that do believe that hydrogen cars are going to be practical alternatives to gasoline vehicles, not that simply they believe that they can make them work.

This slamming engineers talk is a bunch of hypocrisy. You can't make people buy a product they don't want.
A far better path ( for the environment, our economy and security ) would be a lot more mass transit, trains, bicycles, smaller cities, smaller houses, fewer roads and the vast elimination of cars.
A far better EV strategy would be much more affordable cars with much smaller batteries, but most everyone on this forum bought a Tesla and not a Leaf.

There are those who think that customers won't accept EVs, and that the 5 minute refuel is required for the product to succeed. They may think that FCHVs are the best product for the environment that will actually succeed in the mass market. They've been lied to and misled by the oil companies that want to sell you the fuel for those vehicles - but they are not maliciously ignoring the drawbacks of the product they are designing.

If you want to blame someone, blame marketing for telling engineering what the consumers are willing to buy. Oh wait, you can't blame them either, because they don't actually know what they are talking about.

 

[JRP3]

There are those who think that customers won't accept EVs, and that the 5 minute refuel is required for the product to succeed. They may think that FCHVs are the best product for the environment that will actually succeed in the mass market. They've been lied to and misled by the oil companies that want to sell you the fuel for those vehicles - but they are not maliciously ignoring the drawbacks of the product they are designing.

Are you suggesting they can't make the basic calculations that many of us have? I don't think it's malicious but to some degree they have to be ignoring the reality of HFCV's and a hydrogen economy.

 

[dpeilow]

I've had conversations with engineers working on hydrogen who really don't get the bigger picture or the wheel to well efficiency thing. Once you explain it they start to at least think about the issue.

Then again I know engineers who can't see beyond the confines of their own individual system and certainly the geopolitical or environmental consequences of what they are doing are not even on their radar.

 

[richkae]

Are you suggesting they can't make the basic calculations that many of us have? I don't think it's malicious but to some degree they have to be ignoring the reality of HFCV's and a hydrogen economy.

No I am not. What I am saying is that if you believe that:
1) both BEVs and HFCVs can get us off of gasoline and on to clean renewable sources of energy
2) HFCVs are less efficient than BEVs when you consider the full life cycle, but still much better than gasoline ICEs
3) the majority of consumers will not accept BEVs - making HFCVs the best choice despite #2
The third point has nothing to do with physics or engineering, and is the hardest to prove or disprove.

 

[stopcrazypp]

No I am not. What I am saying is that if you believe that:
1) both BEVs and HFCVs can get us off of gasoline and on to clean renewable sources of energy
2) HFCVs are less efficient than BEVs when you consider the full life cycle, but still much better than gasoline ICEs
3) the majority of consumers will not accept BEVs - making HFCVs the best choice despite #2
The third point has nothing to do with physics or engineering, and is the hardest to prove or disprove.

Yes, this is what I am saying too. The "problem" that engineers are presented with is to come up with a solution that is better than ICE. And both BEVs and HFCVs fit that bill and offer a renewable path. They aren't really comparing the BEVs vs HFCVs, since honestly BEVs are still in their infant stage. So it's easy to see why there are those that truly believe in hydrogen.

"Corporate" on the other hand is pretty much profit-driven (with few exceptions ) and that's why I suspect it's mainly a delay tactic from their perspective. Most of the hydrogen backers are spending a bulk of their R&D money on near term solutions (like hybrids) rather than full bore into hydrogen. While the strongest EV backers are spending the bulk of their R&D funds on EVs (Nissan and BMW for example).

 

[Johan]

But the thing is if you get a group of "virgin" engineers to research the subject of HFCV vs. BEV then take their pick on which concept is better and holds most promise, all the smart ones will pick BEVs and the not-so-smart ones will end up pursuing HFCVs. And all the corporate money in the world can only get you that much geniouses. What really attracts the truly genious ones among us is not money but the most promising concept (BEVs) and the chance to work with the rest of the best and brightest (Tesla) under the leadership of a genious visionary (Elon).

 

[richkae]

Yes, this is what I am saying too. The "problem" that engineers are presented with is to come up with a solution that is better than ICE. And both BEVs and HFCVs fit that bill and offer a renewable path. They aren't really comparing the BEVs vs HFCVs, since honestly BEVs are still in their infant stage. So it's easy to see why there are those that truly believe in hydrogen.

It's worse than that. Engineering is told to add features, or improve features but to not change the product otherwise. An HFCV is indistinguishable from an ICE when it comes to how it is operated.
The way you fuel an EV fundamentally changes it from an ICE. Instead of a 5-10 minute stop every week you simple plug it in every night. The daily use case is dramatically improved at the cost of making the rare longer trips more complex.
It *is* stupid to ignore the fact that building a fueling infrastructure for HFCVs is orders of magnitude more expensive than building one for BEVs.

 

[JRP3]

From my own perspective I didn't just wake up one day and think "EV's are the answer". I looked at many potential technologies, including ethanol and other bio fuels, natural gas, hydrogen ICE, hydrogen fuel cells, and EV's, and it didn't take too long to find the major flaws in all of them except for EV's. I would think an engineer would do the same, but maybe they are more focused on solving a particular technical problem in a system and not the viability of the entire system itself. It's just frustrating to think of all the time, energy, resources, and money being spent on dead end technologies. The worst example was the "air car".

 

[jerry33]

3) the majority of consumers will not accept BEVs - making HFCVs the best choice despite #2
The third point has nothing to do with physics or engineering, and is the hardest to prove or disprove.

I don't buy this for a second unless you put the proviso that BEVs have no more range than the Leaf. At the car show in Texas that I attended today (1 Telsa, 1 RR, Lots of Vetts, Camaros, hot rods, and pickups) I didn't have one person say anything bad about EVs (at least not Telsa's EVs) and I got lots of "this is the future" comments. Not one person said anything about HFCVs.

 

[ggr]

I don't buy this for a second unless you put the proviso that BEVs have no more range than the Leaf. At the car show in Texas that I attended today (1 Telsa, 1 RR, Lots of Vetts, Camaros, hot rods, and pickups) I didn't have one person say anything bad about EVs (at least not Telsa's EVs) and I got lots of "this is the future" comments. Not one person said anything about HFCVs.

... because there weren't any there ...

 

[dpeilow]

I actually don't even buy the argument that HFCVs are better than gas.

 

[vfx]

Good piece.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/automobiles/fuel-cells-at-center-stage.html?_r=0

 

[SCW-Greg]

Good piece.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/automobiles/fuel-cells-at-center-stage.html?_r=0

Interesting in that "The cost of the fuel-cell unit, known as the stack, was cut by reducing the amount of platinum catalyst it needed — and it was made smaller to fit it under the front seats.", knowing that the twin tanks they use are pressurized to 10,000psi. A road debris induced puncture, or collision, could be instantly catastrophic.

Also that the government (state and federal levels) is dropping big bucks (hundreds of millions) to back research and infrastructure on this concept. Are EV solutions (and infrastructure) getting this same level of backing?

 

[stopcrazypp]

I noticed this in the article "In Emeryville, I paid $12 to $13 a kilogram". That's pretty expensive. Even if you assume the optimistic 70mpg (so far in EPA they get about 50-60mpg) some of the hydrogen advocates are putting out, that's still equivalent to paying about $6-$6.5/gallon compared to a 35mpg vehicle or $4.3-$4.6/gallon in a 25mpg vehicle. No wonder Hyundai is offering free fueling with the car (people would balk if they saw the fuel prices).

 

[RobStark]

Also that the government (state and federal levels) is dropping big bucks (hundreds of millions) to back research and infrastructure on this concept. Are EV solutions (and infrastructure) getting this same level of backing?

During the Bush years the government backed hydrogen FCV much more than BEVs. In the Obama years it has reversed course. In 2009 the Obama administration approved $5 billion in tax breaks, loans, and grants to further BEV development while budgeting an average of $100M per year for hydrogen.

In most American minds a BEV is a golf cart or a Nissan Leaf. American consumers won't accept that.

A Model E with 200 miles of range and 0-60 under 8.5 seconds ? Yes.

Is a BEV full size pickup too "effete" for Midwestern and Southern Gentlemen?

When Tesla puts a full size pick-up with 1000 lbs of torque @ 0 rmp with appropriate styling in a stump pulling contest against an F-150 and Silverado the term "effete" electric truck will be blown out of the water.

 

[woof]

Is a BEV full size pickup too "effete" for Midwestern and Southern Gentlemen?

Effete? I think not.

BigFoot monster truck goes electric

 

[RobStark]

Effete? I think not.

Demonstrator, off-road, non-street legal electric vehicles do not change public perception of what a BEV is or what it can be.


Widely available vehicles with standard or better OEM warranties that have passed all Federal safety standards change perception.

Model S is changing the perception of what a BEV road car is and can be, not the Rimac Concept One.

 

[gg_got_a_tesla]

BBC - Autos - Carmakers get serious - again - about hydrogen