Hacker News Reader

Comment by kunai | Hacker News Reader

I've been wondering why there hasn't been more energy piled on to fuel cell vehicles. They're EVs, but have far longer ranges and zero emissions. So far, only Honda's FCX is the fuel-cell vehicle on sale in the United States; there are no others.

It's very feasible; all you need to do is fill up with hydrogen, and considering hydrogen is so plentiful, it would be cheap, simple, and easy to generate infrastructure. Transport may be an issue due to the flammability of hydrogen, but there can and will be solutions to that.

Why bother with outdated Li batteries, when there are more efficient solutions out there?

View on HN

Because everything you said is wrong?

Honda FCX has range of only 170 miles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_FCX

And you don't start with a full tank every morning, like you do with a battery electric.

Telsa Model S? Over 200: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_S

Hydrogen in pure form is not available and must be refined from other sources (typically natural gas).

Fuel cells cost more than battery packs and require very expensive infrastructure to support them (since you can't charge at home, there have to be plenty of stations around).

Honda's website says the range is 240 miles [1]

I would argue most people don't have 240 Volt electric lines running through their house in North America so they need to 'build' that infrastructure at home too.

[1] http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/specifications.aspx

Except for perhaps a few extremely rural homes, everyone has 240V in the USA and Canada. The Mexicans without 240V probably aren't the market for electric cars because they don't have cars or electricity. So that covers North America.

Also, you only need 120V for daily charging.

I don't know of any house in my neighbourhood that has a 240V line in their garage. This requires installation.

I do not live in a rural area and neither do my friends.

Clothes dryers and electric ovens are usually 240 volts in the US, so much of that infrastructure in the home is already there.

Hydrogen, being the smallest atom, tends to leak. For this and energy density reasons, the hydrogen must be cryogenically stored, at low temperature and high pressure. I don't think that nut has been cracked. Creating pure hydrogen cheaply and without CO2 emissions from the reformation process is also an unsolved problem, I think.

There are many reasons fuel cells have not been adopted. They are very expensive (in the $100k+ range), they don't last long, storing hydrogen on the car is hard, and their cold weather performance is bad or they do not work at all [1]. And yes, while hydrogen is abundant, we do not have a distribution system in place.

Contrast this with battery electric cars, they exist today are viable at decent price points, they do not degrade as fast as FCV, they work sufficiently in cold weather (I've driven a leaf in MN winter at -20), and the electricity distribution system in place will mostly meet our needs. Top this off with significant investment from diverse industries to improve battery storage and performance (consumer electronics, car manufacturers, power companies).

[1] (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fcv_challenges.shtml)

On a related note, one of the best storage mechanisms we have for hydrogen is in hydrocarbons. There is actually about 64% more hydrogen in a liter of gasoline than in a liter of liquid hydrogen. That same liter of hydrogen also only contains about 25% the energy of the liter of gasoline.

We don't have a good way to contain and transport hydrogen as a fuel.

They are crazy expensive -- most have significant amounts of platinum. Also, there are fundamental problems with operating them in cold climates.

Fuel cells have some traction in fixed-base applications (backup power for small buildings like fire stations) and for mechanical equipment like forklifts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com