Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The video in question is here: http://www1.peteava.ro/id-641316-top-gear-uk-season-12-episo... Tesla's review starts at about 17:29.

The episode seems to be centered around contrasting the Tesla with Honda's FCX Clarity. Here is the 2nd part: http://www1.peteava.ro/id-641379-top-gear-uk-season-12-episo... At about 21:10, James reviews/introduces Honda's FCX Clarity and finishes by calling it "The car of the next 100 years"

James doesn't stop with the praises; and I think he was perhaps disingenuous in glossing over big details.

The processes for getting Hydrogen to be in usable form requires energy by itself. Whereas Tesla's batteries directly give it electricity, there is a system present in the Clarity that converts the hydrogen fuel into electricity. The only emission is... water. Fantastic, rainbows all around.

Hydrogen is indeed abundant throughout this universe, but it is mostly found in compound forms - water, natural gas, etc. There is a certain ratio 'EROI' -- (Energy return on investment) -- which is defined to be: (quantity of energy supplied / quantity of energy used in supply process.)It turns out that in summing the energy required by the very initial processes of getting Hydrogen to be in usable form, packaging it, and delivering it to the user, the EROI for Honda's FCX Clarity is VASTLY higher than it is for electric vehicles, like the Tesla's.

If the episode's central critique was in the basis of comparing the Tesla's efficiency vs. Clarity's (which, to me, felt that an element of it in fact was), it was dishonest of James to gloss over the known inefficiencies of hydrogen fuel cells. As hard as it is for me to say it, as I'm about the biggest James' fan, but I really do think this episode was a little iffy for more than a few reasons.




Well, the marketing ploy got me to watch the review, anyway...

The massive fuel savings makes me think a shorter-range, lower performance vehicle would be more popular (for city commutes). But I'm guessing the real problem Tesla faced was that the batteries would be ridiculously expensive even for that - so targeting a premium performance, upscale market, where other qualities of an electric car (torque) can come into play. Presumably, they would go down market over time, as battery technology improves. Which seems to be on an extraordinarily slow trajectory (esp. in the context of silicon).

Jeremy suggests two Teslas (while one's charging), but you just need two batteries. Reminds me of early razor technology (before Gillette's safety razor), when sending in a razor to be sharpened was a popular option - but you needed to have two.

Fun fact: electric cars were fairly popular over 100 years ago (for trucks mainly IIRC), with batteries being the problem even then. Edison worked on their batteries for a while.

btw: the caravan jump is at 12:05 in part 2 (http://www1.peteava.ro/id-641379-top-gear-uk-season-12-episo...)




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: