All his other arguments about infrastructure and safety apply equally well to petrol cars, and yet here we somehow managed to implement that efficiently. I don't see any inherent reason why we can't do the same for Hydrogen.
Its more efficient to simply use batteries.
EDIT: I'd like to point out, generating hydrogen does make sense if you're using an energy source that is essentially free. Too much hydro and you have to dump the water anyway? Make hydrogen. Too much wind and the transmission operator is shutting down your production? Make hydrogen. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense to use it as an energy transfer medium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy#Current_produc...
What losses to we have on the battery end? Transmission line losses (6%), li-ion charge/discharge losses (80-90%), losses due to the fact that the car needs to keep the battery warm/cool depending on outside temperature (pretty high in the winter, regular 120V outlet is not enough to keep the capacity up).
Personally I dismiss hydrogen mostly because I'm frightened by the thought of a bunch of high pressure fire bombs being driven around by drunk people.
All current renewable energy sources have one big flaw. They produce energy when the circumstances are right, not when required. Beacause of this they cause issues in the energy grid.
If we could build water cracking facilities at the right scale with the right characteristics, that could help offset the efficiency/cost issues.
And on the issue of high pressure fire bombs, gas powered cars are pretty common here in Europe and those things are pretty safe. There are numerous safety features, not to mention that gas tanks are pretty tough vessels.
Edit: On the topic of fire bombs. I have today learned that one would not want Hydrogen tank in his vehicle.
Everyone comes to this conclusion when you realize how deadly compressed hydrogen is compared to liquid petroleum. Nothing like being burned by fire you can't see.
The Wikipedia article on water splitting notes that "production of hydrogen from water requires large amounts of energy and is uncompetitive with production from coal or natural gas." If you're capturing it as a byproduct of an existing process, then it probably makes sense, but just applying electricity to water to generate hydrogen to burn isn't very economical right now.
It's more efficient to simply use hydrogen.
I don't understand why anyone would be convinced by arguments like this that don't include numbers, when you can make the argument sound equally valid on either side of the debate.
The overall losses in Germany are 7%. [1]
> It's more efficient to simply use hydrogen.
Only if you fake your numbers by an order of magnitude, see above.
> I don't understand why anyone would be convinced by arguments like this that don't include numbers.
Still better than your astroturf numbers. If hydrogen is better, so be it. However, the Tesla S can go 450km with one charge today and it can be charged everywhere.
An electric car is the nightmare of traditional car manufacturers: an electric motor costs nothing and lasts unlimited kilometers. You need no engine oil change, the brakes last a lot longer and cars will easily last 1.000.000 miles / kilometers and a lot more with little maintenance. You do need to change the battery but this is not money for the car manufacturer.
So there are two huge industries for which e-cars are a nightmare: petrol and classic car manufacturers.
Disclosure: I drive an MiEV an it works amazingly well.
[1] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cbertragungsverlust (german)
I suppose if we had the tech to do that, we might be able to find off-planet oxygen as well...? Except wasn't most of ours produced by plants splitting carbon-dioxide?
The ability to use effectively the same engines and plant is a big plus for hydrogen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
As for transport, that's what a power grid is for. Transporting hydrogen loses more efficiency than transmission losses.
Batteries are way ahead on every objective measure, and getting better every year.
See the Hydro section of Sustainable Energy - without the hot air by David JC MacKay:
http://www.withouthotair.com/c8/page_55.shtml
Even though the land mass of the US is larger than the UK, it's hard to see hydro being more than MacKay's 2kW per day per person...
That's two 40W light bulbs left on all day.
The goal of pumped storage isn't to create new electricity, but to store large amounts of unused baseload power. This can be done with a standard hydroelectric dam by pumping the water back up into the lake behind the dam, but it can also be an entirely artificial reservoir.
You could probably add a small hydrogen storage facility to every wind farm in the UK for less than the cost of the public inquiry into a new pumped storage scheme.
And farmers might object to you taking the water they use for irrigation
He is one person, and he is not all knowing. He has limited time and potential. He also has a significant ego and financial interest in their current course.
He's a smart guy, but I'm not going to write something off because he isn't into it.
The fact is, you don't need to have a high energy density with hydrogen, as existing gas stations can be used to quick refuel a hydrogen car (with robotic assist, perhaps), without the logistical mess that comes from swapping an extremely heavy, very expensive, potentially user-abused battery with another one. You can even burn hydrogen in an ICE engine, as BMW has demonstrated.
The Honda Clarity FCX, a hydrogen powered car, is the only other car to achieve Type V California ZEV credits besides the Model S. Perhaps that's too much competition for Musk. The range of that car is 240 miles.