Why Hydrogen when we have Electric?

Question

Why are we spending billions to develop Hydrogen fuel cell cars, which is a big unknown, when we have the technology to develop better and more effiecient Electric cars? Zero emissions car available, TODAY! Tesla motor was able to make a car to go 250 miles on a single charge. Image the possiblities if we invested further money into the technology and rid ourselves of the dependency of foreign oil. Energy concerns can also be addressed with new developments from solar, wind and water sources. With Hydrogen cars you are dealing with unknowns and there's no way of telling when they would be ready for production. Even when it is ready, how are people going to get the hydrogen fuel. I'm sure the big oil companies will be more than happy to control the distribution on that as well.

Answer 1

-------
You are so correct. The battery electric vehicle is the closest-to-reality alternative fuel technology we have, and this is where the research dolars belong, not in fuel cells (which are essentially less-efficient electric vehicles).
*
The clearest way to show this is with a couple of examples. GM's prototype fuel-cell car, the Equinox, has a 300-mile driving range - but the car weighs over 4,000 pounds!
*
Contrast this to the Tesla electric sports car - it weighs maybe half that much - and has a range of 250 miles. If we added 2,000 pounds of additional batteries to the Tesla, it would have a driving range of nearly 1,000 miles!
*
So which looks like the more viable technology?
*
Despite lack of government funding, EV research has not stood still. Here's a new EV (out next year) that can charge its batteries in 10 minutes, and drive for up to 200 miles per charge:
*
http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com
*
Don't believe the disinfo about electric cars polluting. Electric motors are several times more efficient than gas engines. Power plants burn fuel at much higher efficiency than your gas car does. And distributing electricity by wire is far, far more efficient than trucking fuel around the countryside.
*
All these efficiency improvements mean that the EV can travel further on less energy. That means much less pollution per mile, no matter what the power plants burn. Plus, a decent percentage of electricity is now made from non-polluting sources.
*
It's absurdly easy to prove the efficiency argument by looking at fuel costs. It only costs about a tenth as much (in electricity costs, compared to gasoline) to go an equivalent distance in an EV versus a conventional vehicle.
--------

Answer 2

The point is that if you have an electric vehicle that goes 250 miles, once you go 250 miles, you have to stop and charge up the batteries for a while. With a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, you can fill up at any station and drive for however long you want (like a gasoline powered vehicle). You don't have to worry about if there is enough time to charge your car up before you head out. I agree that for specific short distance driving, like commuting, electric is probably better, but for practicality purposes, the fuel cell is the way to go.

Either way, the energy comes from somewhere whether it is a nuclear power plant or a hydrogen refinery. And yes, big oil will most definitely have their hands in the hydrogen business, who else has the funds or capability to do it?

Answer 3

The Hydrogen myth has several components to it;

First, the Hydrogen Fuel cell is quite a ways off for being economically feasible. which placates us that the best is being done (it is not)

Second the burning of hydrogen in Internal combustion engines is just a different fuel for the same paradigm.

You are right on this in oh so many ways

"Who killed the electric car?" movie leads one to the answer: Auto manufacturers, Fuel companies, auto service companies, and governments (dependent on Auto and fuel TAXES), have to keep things gong at the current methodology or those HUGE interests do not know how they will survive and prosper.

Check your phone book to see how many would be put out of business if the fuel burning car is gone. No more radiator, exhaust, oil change shops, etc.

WE loose.

Answer 4

I think the point of the question, correct me if I'm wrong, is since Hydrogen is highly unknown to everybody why not improve on the technology that we have. We don't know the amount of energy needed just to create the hydrogen, the amount of money it would cost to distribute, the amount it would cost the consumer for each "unit" of hydrogen and of course the efficiency for each "unit" of hydrogen.

Instead we could improve on existing technologies which would save time and energy to improve on our existing solar cell to improve efficiency, build more efficient and cleaner power plants to lower cost for consumers, develop electric cars with interchangable battery packs to eliminate the time needed to charge while on the road (just my own thought), create new way to develop renewable energy provide by the earth.

If i had to give an answer, I'd say fear of change. Preasure from corporations that fear they would lose the market share they already have. Fear from the consumer of new technology and a change in how things would work.

Answer 5

Exploring the hydrogen option is certainly viable on top of the promise of zero emission and cost effective electric cars. Ah, there's the catch. Cost effective? Yes, but cost is not a constant. If the entire planet converted to electric cars I assure that cost will not be what it is today; even if you are recharging at night when industry is shut down.

For those of us who had to bear the electrical cost of the summer of 2006 in California, we know what this means. One of my bills was $400 and I was shutting off the Air Conditioner late at night when the cooler desert winds start taking some effect. Dozens of transformers burnt out and Edison did not have enough manpower to repair them quickly leading to 100 deaths and tons of rotting food in refrigerators. The system came with in a hair of rolling blackouts.

In light of this, it is safe to say that continuing to explore the hydrogen option is not such a bad idea.

Answer 6

Hydrogen fuel cells function like batteries. The hydrogen is not combusted. The cars will still be electric.

Answer 7

how would we make electric? Solar panels have limited efficiency, wind needs....wind, nuclear still has waste issues and safety issues (3-Mile Island, anyone?)

several automakers have shown preproduction examples of hydrogen cars, and hydrogen is the most plentiful element on the planet....so the question should be "why NOT hydrogen?"

Answer 8

Electric has to come from somewhere,usually from a coal fired power station so all you are doing with electric cars is making the mess somewhere else.