Why is this idiot pushing for battery-fueled E-cars, instead

>>8771966
hydrogen = expensive engine + inefficient transport of fuel

-no big profit margin atm
case closed

Where have you been for the last 5 years anon?
Hydrogen is ded, battery won.

dude, simulation, man.

>>8771966

why aren't you pushing for hydrogen fueled E-cars?

oh wait you have no money

>>8771966
Efficiency. Workability.

Wall-to-wheels efficiency of charging car batteries then using them to drive around is around 70-80%. The similar figure for generating hydrogen with electrolysis and then using fuel cells is around 20-30%.

The apparatus for "recharging" a hydrogen car is more complex and expensive, too. It's not just electronics, it's electronics + plumbing + flammable gas pumping and storage.

>>8771966
Water splitting catalyst = $$$$$$$$$$
Engine = $$$$ and heavy
Hydrogen storage materials = $$$$$$$

Battery is known and is constantly getting better. Finally the academic roulette wheel spun in my direction. My PhD research is in battery chemistry, cathode materials, and electrolyte development

>>8772127
If the batteries for cars are like the batteries for my notebook and smartphone then they will be basically useless after 2 years of use.

Also, all that toxic waste of the batteries is going to cause problems.

>>8772111
Well, not no money, I have a net worth of 3k at the moment.

>>8771966
Because of Muslims

>>8772150
kek

>>8772150
I've worked less than one year in my life and I have a net worth of >30k.

>>8772153
oh wait nevermind, I thought this was /o/

>>8771966
>idiot

He has achieved thousands of times more in his life than your entire family and genealogy in the last 300 years. If Elon Musk were an apple, you wouldn't even be a drop of water from that apple. Respect your superiors.

>>8772157
I have worked 0 hours in my life.

>>8772145
This.

Tesla is a huge bubble.

Once owners realize how siginificantly the storage capacities of their batteries are going to drop after 6-8 years the company is going to be in huge trouble. Basically every single owner will either have to spend 10s of thousands of dollars on a new battery or have a car that is basically a brick.

BMW will win the market soon. They have battery technology that will be able to drive 300km and more while lasting decades without significant drop in storage capacities.

>>8771966
Let Sadoway explain why hydrogen is dumb.

Skip to 3:40 to avoid intro. It's an hour, but worth the watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSi4v1GUS_k

>>8771966
hydrogen for trucks that transport heavy good for long distances, batteries for small city cars with shared drivers

>>8772213
?
You'll want to get a new battery in 6-8 years anyways
Obviously electric cars will not be low cost solution for the next 5 years

Then again, an electric car will need far less maintenance than a normal car.

>>8772242
wtf
You lied
Intro lasts 6 minutes

File: Supply_demand_1.png (13KB, 640x541px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 640x541px

>>8771966
Until we can find a better electrode material... we have to use Platinium. The jewelry store part of the periodic table.

The tech doesn't scale. Sure rich people and labfags can play.

Browse a chemical supplier to get an idea of prices. Now imagine creating the demand of the entire auto industry. The electrodes would end up costing more than every other component of the car and then some. Basic econ.

http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/aldrich/298107?lang=en&region=US&cm_sp=Insite-_-prodRecCold_xviews-_-prodRecCold10-4

>>8772262
Sorry. Should have been more specific.

I meant skipping the douche that introduced him. I find Sadoway amusing... so don't mind.

>>8771966
Fuel cells need platinum and that shit is expensive and there is no way it will ever be cheap. In fact, the more hydrogen cars you build the more expensive they will get, because the prices for platinum will go through the roof. So as long as there is no technology to build fuel cells without or with very little platinum it will not be an option.

Battery was brought back by smartphones and notebooks, because thanks to them billions are being invested to find better battery technologies. Now they are good enough to fuel cars already, and they will only get better. Tesla also has no big problem with the longevity, you can drive 500.000 km without a significant drop in storage capacity (it's tested, it's true) and after that it will drop to ~80% and after another 500.000km you can throw the battery away. That's still 1.000.000kms which is more than most combustion cars can deliever.

>>8771966
Because he makes batteries?

File: frank.jpg (90KB, 435x653px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 435x653px

Many reasons:

1) Hydrogen isn't a clean energy source.
2) It's too light so you can't store too much of it at high pressures or else your car will just lift away.
3) It's highly explosive
4) Burning it creates UV radiation which can cause skin cancer.
5) It has the same radiation as space communication through hydrogen line so it will cause unnecessary interference and can lead to problems in the future

Electricity on the other hand, is clean energy. It can pass through almost any metal so you can choose the most safest one. It can travel at the speed of light, but hydrogen can't move that fast because it has mass.

>>8772282
Seems like he's a big battery autist

>>8771966
I'd rather not see reenactments of the Hindenburg disaster every time there's a car crash.

hydrogen is a clean burning fuel, but is expensive to make

>>8772430
more or less the same thing with batteries
>>8772414
>Hydrogen isn't a clean energy source.
neither are batteries

>>8772455
Well aren't all the batteries for electric cars expensive to make?

>>8772456
why do you people respond seriously to shitposts
you are ruining my 4chan experience

>>8772423
Yeah for sure. Came up with a pretty cool liquid metal battery for grid level storage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xACsX5KAtvM

>>8772456
>neither are batteries
The difference is that battery tech scales economically because there are a multitude of chemistries (some exotic and expensive, others abundant and dirt cheap).

Whereas hydrogen is more of a potential tech, depending upon some yet to be invented electrode material that is abundant and easily extracted from earth. The electrochemistry of fuel cells makes that requirement rather difficult.

Additionally storing gaseous hydrogen has many issues (leakage, embrittlement, flammability, to name a few). However, storing hydrogen a metal hydride (lithium hydride for example) is a decent alternative to storing the gas.

Fuel cells are essentially "gas batteries" so I don't actually think of them as different per se. Rather, I think of the hydrogen fuel cell, (using current tech), as a really inefficient and expensive battery.

However, there are use cases where it can make sense. My opinion is that the transportation industry is the worst place to try and apply the current technology. The economics of a particular tech matters outside of the lab.

>>8771966
You're the fucktard

The thermodynamic efficiency of electric cars is much better than hydrogen fuel.

To get hydrogen fuel you have to use electricity and you only get a small portion of the energy translated into fuel.

So it would require 2x as much energy as an electric vehicle to travel any distance.

In addition hydrogen storage is shit

Basically it's shit. Hydrogen fuel was a sabotage idea by the oil industry to keep money out of electric cars.

Please when you calculate future transport solutions factor in self-driving capabilities.

Keep in mind a self-driving fleet replaces about 20x as many cars as what we are used to. So expense per car is not as important.

>>8772430
>H-Hey guys! Come on hop in into the totally safe battery car!

... in reality, not so much:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZhHaba7kCE

>>8771966
1. Because battery tech has gone to a point where you can get decent range and good output + a reasonable life span for an early-adopter/high-end product.
2. Because his end goal is to stimulate the development of better clean energy solutions for the transport sector.
3. Because it's economically viable for mass production.

Just that. If H2-solutions reach the same stage, Tesla and BMW will start making hydrogen cars in the upper consumer price range, basically.
It's not ABOUT batteries, it's about changing an industry a few years early. He estimated that the changes brought on by forcing high-end car manufacturers to consider Tesla a competor didn't shave off more than 5-10 years of development, the E-cars were coming no matter what. But the auto industry is notoriously sluggish, so they need a kick in the nuts every now and then.

>inb4 muskonite
In some ways I suppose you could be right, I do admire his vision, but I don't think he's the second coming.

>>8772163
>He has achieved thousands of times more in his life than your entire family and genealogy in the last 300 years.
So has Hitler.

>>8772127
there's a huge black market for batteries though especially the 18650 they just peel the outer coat off and put a new one on, can buy used ones for like $0.09 and resell

>>8773598
His obsession with Mars is frankly bizarre, we really should be aiming for Luna right now. Mars is an easy next step after that, but it won't ever be a good idea. Too much gravity.

>>8773616
Oh, one of you guys. Look, a lunar base for fuel production is decades off. We almost have the tech needed for return trip missions to Mars, and that will spur private space corps more than any tiny proof-of-concept car-sized industrial base on Luna ever will.

It's time, bubba. Mars is next.

>>8773623
There's absolutely nothing on Mars. Absolutely fucking nothing. On the moon we can mine titanium and iron in abundance as well as aforementioned polar fuel production, but you're right, we'll never get that garbage off the ground without pointless Mars-shot colonies and similar bullshit.
Mars is just going to be a pointless Antarctica tier research outpost or a poverty stricken death-trap. Can you name me a single useful thing we can do on Mars that we can't do here?

>>8773630
>Antarctica is pointless
brainlet detected.
>Name one thing we can do on mars
Humanity has never been to other planets, and replicating martian conditions is difficult and costly. We will learn about how the body reacts to lower-but-present gravity, we can advance botany and GMO research to create plant that fit the bill, we can learn how to revitalize dead soil in new and creative ways.
Mars also has resources, we can make methane and hydrogen for rocket fuel, making Mars the gateway to the solar system with fueling and habitation. I don't disagree Luna has interesting features it would be cool to utilize, but for now, Mars is the sensible answer. You're very critical without actually providing any arguments, just hypothetical naysaying.

>>8773639
Mars is useless and expensive, Moon is a bit less useless and a bit less expensive. Its a no brainer where to go first.

>>8773649
Not an argument, friendo.

>>8771966
hydrogen is a meme