Hyundai Hydrogen Fuel Cell SUV Will Have 500 Miles Of Range

5 months ago by Jeff Perez 132

Hyundai Futuristic FE Fuel Cell Concept

Set to debut from the winter olympics, Hyundai’s new hydrogen SUV could have a range of up to 500 miles.

Alongside the Ioniq, the ix35, and others in the lineup, Hyundai has a long-term plan in place to bring even more efficient vehicles to market. A new dedicated EV platform is already on the way, and now the Korean automaker says that it will introduce an all-new fuel cell SUV in just a few years.

According to Bloomberg, the proposed fuel cell SUV will have a further driving range than vehicles from rivals like Toyota and Honda. The new model will be introduced alongside a fuel cell bus during the Winter Olympic Games in Pyeongchang, South Korea in 2018.

Hyundai Futuristic FE Fuel Cell Concept

The upcoming SUV was previewed earlier in the year by the dramatic FE Fuel Cell concept. The concept was first shown at the Geneva Motor Show and has an estimated range of about 500 miles (800 kilometers) on a single refuel. We’ve also seen a small hydrogen crossover testing on public roads, though it’s unclear whether these models are one in the same.

But Hyundai not only wants to lead in range, but also infrastructure. “We want to lead the changes in terms of technology,” said Kim Sae-hoon, who oversees fuel-cell technology at Hyundai. “When there is industrial restructuring and emergence of new technologies, it gives a new opportunity to us.” In total, Hyundai sold just 242 ix35 fuel-cell vehicles last year compared to Toyota’s 2,050 Mirais sold, 1,000 of which were in Japan.

Already the South Korean government has announced a goal of putting more than 10,000 FCVs on the road, exporting 14,000 units, and installing more than 100 charging stations by 2020. A so-called “Hydrogen Council” set up earlier in the year hopes to put those plans in to place with a more than $10 billion investment.

Source: Bloomberg

Tags: , , ,

132 responses to "Hyundai Hydrogen Fuel Cell SUV Will Have 500 Miles Of Range"

  1. S'toon says:

    When will automakers finally admit that hydrogen is a hideously expensive dead end technology?

    It’s not efficient.

    It’s not environmental.

    There’s no infrastructure to produce or distribute it.

    1. Hydrogen Rules says:

      When will anonymous posters on the intertubes realize that no matter what they scribble the Hydrogen Revolution has just begun?

      It IS efficient. Not as efficient you say? Well I’d rather trade a bit of efficiency for not having to stop for 45 minutes every 2-300 miles. People trade efficiency for convenience every single day. That’s why not everyone buys the ICE car that gets the most mileage.

      Hydrogen produced with electricity from renewable energy is the greenest fuel on the planet. So it IS “environmental”.

      The infrastructure is growing every month, and companies like SimpleFuel and Nikola Motor are going to surprise everyone. Existing gas stations can be retrofit as well (See SimpleFuel).

      Your “arguments” are stale and false. Ask Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, who just agreed to buy almost 1/4 of Plug Power- a fuel cell manufacturer.

      1. Anti-Lord Kelvin says:

        I would love to see Hydrogen trucks circulating in the wild (not passing by your neighbourhood, sure) to fill all these very cheap retrofitted gas stations. And, it’s not that hydrogen plumbing is a nightmare to maintain safe.

        For long term storage in some very specific industrial places (storage of utility solar or wind power plant), very heavy industrial vehicles, military vehicles, and an other hand full of use. But, not in the our street cars, bus and truck.

        You saw what happened, in Nice (France), Berlin, London and now Stockholm, with regular vehicles? Now, imagine a truck with an hydrogen tank…terrorist will no more to worry in getting explosive as they will be able to blow away an entire market or quarter, with a regular delivery vehicle…

      2. mx says:

        LOL. You can drive in 3 counties in CA on hydrogen, that’s a “revolution”. Stay gullible my friend.

      3. Mustang_sallad says:

        By your logic, why would anyone choose a hydrogen vehicle instead of a gas powered one?

        PlugPower’s forklifts operate in a very different context (indoors, no downtime for charging, fleet with dedicated fueling infrastructure). Nikola has a long way to go before anyone can point to them as a sign of success for any technology (have they even shown a working prototype yet? just an idea and renderings so far, and a weird ATV for reasons).

        1. Martin Winlow says:

          Electric forklifts with swapping batteries work just as well, only at 50% of the energy cost… and you don’t wast 50% more electrical energy than the forklifts use making and distributing the H2 in the first place.

          1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

            Forklifts are used to do job, not to save last penny on fuel, but loose thousands of dollars on dedicated battery swapping and charging area in warehouse, and loose of productivity at the end of shift when battery runs low.

            So far total cost of ownership is on par or better for FC forklifts in big multi-shift warehouses. That is why big players are switching to it. Batteries are still cheaper for smaller and single shift warehouses. Nobody just buys forklifts on whim like some Tesla tech toy. People do detailed cost calculations, accounting for direct and indirect costs before choosing one or another.

            1. SJC says:

              The word is LOSE not loose.

      4. Dr. Miguelito Loveless says:

        “When will anonymous posters on the intertubes realize that no matter what they scribble the Hydrogen Revolution has just begun?”

        So, “Hydrogen Rules” is your real name?

        1. Get Real says:

          This new username is just another one of the existing shills posting under a new username to try and manufacture the appearence of more support for the fool cell fans then there really is.

          Its probably sven or 4E.

          1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

            Sorry to disappoint you Get Real. But it’s not me, you tin foil hat wearing conspiracy nut.

            Hydrogen Rules!
            Get Real Drools!
            😛

          2. zzzzzzzzzz says:

            Get Real,

            You may troll all you want, but it is not popularity contest among few enthusiasts, fanboys and mentally disturbed conspiracy nuts.

            Ultimately cheaper and more functional technology wins, and $100k or $50k hype powered cars have no chance ever replacing 90% of combustion cars or trucks on the road, whatever puff or poff you post. Fuel cells have higher chance to do it over decades.

      5. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        “Ask Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, who just agreed to buy almost 1/4 of Plug Power- a fuel cell manufacturer.”

        Jeff Bezos heads the alt-space company Blue Origin. Fuel cells do have a practical niche application for certain types of military hardware, as well as spacecraft. Who knows? Maybe Plug Power fuel cells will be used in Blue Origin spacecraft.

        However, since Mr. Bezos is familiar with spacecraft technology, I have no doubt he is scientifically literate, which means he understands the Laws of Physics and Thermodynamics, which will forever prohibit compressed hydrogen from becoming a practical or affordable fuel for everyday passenger cars.

        He doubtless understands that — and you clearly don’t.

        1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

          Pu-pu,

          You should go back to school and learn “Laws of Physics and Thermodynamics” that you so often talk about.

          If you are capable of learning anything, a good teacher would explain to you that physics is hard science, and you use logic and math in it. It has nothing to do with pseudo-religious zealotry and repeating “Laws of Physics and Thermodynamics” as some incantation to cast spell on non-believers. It just doesn’t work as magic spell. At least it was so when I was studying thermodynamics.

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Gosh yes, we’re all totally in awe of your deep understanding of thermodynamics, such as your incessant claims that someday compressed hydrogen gas will be a fuel in widespread use as an everyday fuel for transportation.

            /sarcasm

            Tell us zzzzzzzzzzz, were you able to even spell “thermodynamics” without copy-and-pasting the word? 😆

            1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

              How dumb a person needs to be to imagine constructive and “honest” (as you say) discussion going this way? About what, thermodynamics? Or your preschool level name calling games?

      6. Martin Winlow says:

        I’m not anonymous and have posted dozens of times on the interweb pointing out the complete lunacy of the ‘H2 economy’… at this point in time, at least (and probably forever). Anyway, on to your points…

        “When will anonymous posters on the intertubes realise that no matter what they scribble the Hydrogen Revolution has just begun?” – It really hasn’t ‘begun’… but it has been trying to for about 50 years. All we have at the moment are ever-diminishing numbers of old-school auto-makers trying, desperately, to cling to their status quo with the assistance of very monied Big Oil accomplices who want to continue to supply the world’s transportation system with fossil fuels, thanks very much. You do know that 98% of H2 is currently derived from natural gas, don’t you?

        “It IS efficient. Not as efficient you say? Well I’d rather trade a bit of efficiency for not having to stop for 45 minutes every 2-300 miles. People trade efficiency for convenience every single day. That’s why not everyone buys the ICE car that gets the most mileage.” – How can H2FCVs be efficient if making the H2 uses 50% more electrical energy than what is contained in the H2 produced? Just use *all* the electrical energy in an EV and you are already 50% up!

        Tesla have proven that long range (should you need them – 95% of cars drive less than 40 miles daily) EVs can be done but even if you stick to a short range one, what fundamentally is wrong with stopping even every hour for 20 minutes? I used to do this with my i-MiEV and found it a much more pleasant and relaxing way of doing long distance trips. By the time you have had a pee and done a few emails you are done. But you could just hire a car for the event, instead.

        But you are forgetting *the most* important thing to most people (shameful as it is)… what it costs them. There is a trade-off, of course, between convenience and cost. But H2 is *a lot* more expensive than electricity (especially if you can make the electricity for free on the roof of your house).

        “Hydrogen produced with electricity from renewable energy is the greenest fuel on the planet. So it IS “environmental”.” – See above – you are wasting 50% of the electrical energy you create! That *so* isn’t ‘environmental’ – it’s just ‘mental’!

        “The infrastructure is growing every month, and companies like SimpleFuel and Nikola Motor are going to surprise everyone. Existing gas stations can be retrofit as well (See SimpleFuel).” – Sure, *glacially* and even if 20% of existing US fuel stations had H2 facilities it would cost ~$40 *billion* (110k stations x 0.2 x $2m/H2 station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filling_station http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56412.pdf). Who the *heck* is going to pay for that… and that’s only 1/5th the number of existing gas stations!

        “Your “arguments” are stale and false. Ask Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, who just agreed to buy almost 1/4 of Plug Power- a fuel cell manufacturer.” – You havn’t got any arguments – just the same old utterly un-researched claptrap.

        1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

          Martin Winlow said:
          “. . . what fundamentally is wrong with stopping even every hour for 20 minutes?”

          Ain’t nobody got time for that! Otherwise, we’d all drive our EVs at 55 mph to maximize efficiency on the highway. That adds an entire hour to a 210-mile road trip if you’re driving at 70 MPH. That’s only for EV masochists!

          Always stopping 20 minutes during a road trip at a fast food joint with a Supercharger gets old fast. On long road trips, most people would prefer to stop at scenic overviews or other points of interest to stretch their legs on a long road trip, and these places have no Superchargers.

          1. Adrian the nerd says:

            We are a family of four that currently drive two ICE cars. My little commuter car drives 10 miles per day to work and back, and the minivan gets local driving plus our few annual road trips. My commuter could easily be replaced by a limited range Nissan Leaf, but I can’t stand how sluggish they are. We’ve determined that we’re willing to drive 6 hours per day for a road trip, so a 200+ mile range EV will be fine for us with a single stop to charge and get lunch (tesla 3 reservation holder). Once an inexpensive little peppy commuter comes out I’ll replace my mazda3 as well, and any range over ~50 miles will be fine. However, I’ll be keeping the minivan as a 3rd car for the foreseeable future to tow our little cargo trailer for camping. I think it’s going to be a good while before there is an affordable option to replace that use case.

      7. Peppa says:

        Hydrogen produced with electricity from renewable energy does not exist yet.
        All production comes from a natural gas.

        1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

          That is absolutely and completely wrong.

          By law California requires that 33% of the hydrogen sold at H2 fueling stations come from renewable sources. In practice, each year for the past 4 years around 45% of the H2 sold at California fueling station came from renewable sources. These renewable sources are H2 made by electrolysis using renewable energy, and H2 made using methane from landfills, waste treatment plants, and cows/cattle.

          California is also building North America’s zero-emission hydrogen power plant in Palm Springs, which will use wind and solar energy to electrolyze 1,000 kilograms of renewable hydrogen per day.
          https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2016/11/01/885088/0/en/Hydrogenics-Enters-into-Strategic-Collaboration-with-StratosFuel-for-2-5-MW-Power-to-Gas-Project-in-California.html

          Denmark and Norway make 100% of their hydrogen for transportation and industrial uses from renewable energy. 100%!!!

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            I see fool cell fanboy Sven is here once again to regurgitate his utterly refuted Big Oil propaganda.

            Remind me, just what magic are you gonna use to transform the physical attributes of hydrogen molecules into something that might someday become a practical everyday fuel?

            Oh, that’s right… you never answer that, because of course you can’t.

            1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

              I see Pu-Pu is here once again to troll me.

            2. SJC says:

              PP
              Stop with the insults, he made a valid point.

      8. SparkEV says:

        “not having to stop for 45 minutes every 2-300 miles”

        1500 miles with SparkEV (50 miles per day) would need 30 home charging a month at 15 seconds each. That’s only 7.5 minutes over 1500 miles of driving with “82 miles” SparkEV.

        Same number of miles with 300 miles FCEV would need five (or more) sessions of 10 minute fueling for close to an hour. If you consider out of the way driving (eg. 10 minutes each), FCEV would need close to 2 hours of waiting.

        With Bolt, even 200+ miles per day (6000 miles per month) would still only result in 7.5 minutes a month. But with FCEV, you’d be wasting about 4 hours a month standing around, or 8 hours if you include drive time.

        When it comes to saving fueling time for most people, EV are lot better than HFCV. Most people don’t realize this very important convenience of home charging. I certainly had no idea before experiencing it first hand.

        1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

          SparkEV:
          “FCEV would need five (or more) sessions of 10 minute fueling for close to an hour. ”

          It is not 10, but 2-4 minutes. And your logic is just fine as long you use your car exclusively for commuting and don’t over range. Good for your. Many people however expect more functionality out of their cars, and half of the world population don’t even have such option as charging at home, for cheap, or maintaining second gas car as backup.

          1. SparkEV says:

            Since I haven’t used H filling station, I can only go by what others discussed, and they were talking about 9 minutes. But even if it’s the same as gasoline car (about 5 minutes), it makes little difference in that FCEVs are still lot more waiting overall than BEV for most people.

            With 200+ miles range BEV, longer trips become much more rare, not to mention the ability to plug-in and do something instead of standing around like with FCEV.

            If you’re extrapolating to the world where H will be cheaper than gasoline and H stations as numerous as gas stations, same can be said about much quicker charging EV: they will come.

            But BEVs enjoy far more convenient home charging, which I suspect other people will want when they experience it in person. Talking about it doesn’t drive home the point. It certainly didn’t with me until I actually used home charging for about a month.

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              Yup, fool cell fanboys and Big Oil shills like zzzzzzzzz have gotten so used to lying that they do it even when they don’t need to.

              Such as claiming you can fill up a fool cell car’s fuel tank in only 2-4 minutes, when real-world reports are that it never takes less than 5, and usually 9-10 minutes… even if it’s not one of those times when the unfortunates driving those fool cell cars have to wait in line… and wait… and wait… because it takes time for the dispensing tanks to re-pressurize after filling one car.

              1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

                Your entire post is BS. You’re just spreading FUD. Edmunds did a long-term review of the Mirai over 6 months and 7,925 miles, and reported no problems filling up the Mirai with fillups NEVER TAKING MORE THAN 5 MINUTES.

                1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

                  Edmunds long term road test of the Mirai:
                  https://www.edmunds.com/toyota/mirai/2016/long-term-road-test/

                  1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

                    Pu-pu doesn’t even drive as he himself admitted at some time 😉 But he nonetheless “knows” very well how long does it take to fill Mirai and all the people in the world who actually do it are not going to change Pu-pu mind 😉

              2. SJC says:

                PP
                Knock off the trash talk, speak intelligently.

          2. SparkEV says:

            This brings an interesting point about FCEV viability. Merely having it same experience as gasoline is not enough. What they should have is the ability to fuel at home at “reasonable cost” (ie. about $500 like EVSE or even bit more). If H become as cheap as gasoline and range like gasoline, but has the added benefit of home “charging”, that could be the tipping point.

            But I don’t see that happening any time soon from cost perspective.

            1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

              99% of world car buyers seems don’t care about home charging. While I agree that car option to charge at home is nice addition, if you have such possibility (half of the world population doesn’t and unlikely will have it at mass scale), it isn’t something that will make critical difference. It sounds more like the last straw argument.

              And there is no need for everybody to use exactly the same technology or even the same car brand and model. It is always nice to have choices.

      9. Roy_H says:

        My biggest complaint about the H2 fuel is that the distribution is so expensive, The stations installed in CA (one or two cars) cost $2M each and hydrogen requires special piping, tanks and I have seen estimates up to a trillion dollars for US infrastructure. I wouldn’t mind at all if it was paid for by the oil companies that are going to profit but [b]it is being paid for by taxpayers[/b], 95% of whom will never use it!

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Even worse, that $2 million station can only service about 24 cars per day. Compare to a typical gasoline filling station, built at a considerably cheaper price and able to service, on average, 1100 (that’s right, eleven hundred) cars per day!

          The more you look at the “hydrogen economy”, the worse it looks.

        2. zzzzzzzzzz says:

          Doing it at scale, it is cheaper than equivalent capacity fast charging station, and H2 stations can be scaled much easier and at reduced cost.

          Canada government ordered 2 H2 stations last week. Cost to government 1.6 mln. VW proposed fast charger plan for over 1 mln for each station, and it is still much slower than 3 minutes.

          (And here comes Big Oil shill Pu-pu and starts advocating for “clean” diesel and gasoline 😉

    2. Anti-Lord Kelvin says:

      I think you don’t get the point. Soon, everyone at home will be able to treat his excrements in a sort of bio-reactor that will convert it in methane. Then, another reaction will convert it in hydrogen. Then, you will some electricity to compress it at 700 psi and put it in a tank in your garage. Then, you will sleep very secure as you never mind to blow away all the neighbourhood as hydrogen plumbing is the trickiest thing in industry, so it should be easy to maintain a secure system at every home. Then, you will use more electricity to pump this hydrogen to fill your car tank (another bomb to explode some day). Not to speak the easy to made and not dangerous public infrastructure (pipelines)and cheap to built and maintain hydrogen stations…

      Now, the truly very dangerous thing is the handful of Tesla cars that burnt enough slowly to let their owner to go out with no harm and the the fact of solar panels (soon Tesla solar home roofs) are not easy to put at home as google had show recently (!). And you need the very difficult(!) to maintain power-wall batteries and outlets to charge these electric cars that are not easy to find as the electric grid is very spars (!) and, sure, you need very expansive(!) electric public charging stations…/Sac:)
      Oh Hyundai, you are only attempting to not lose the face, but hydrogen have to limited to only an handful of heavy application, not in car, not even in bus.

      1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

        Anti-Lord Kelvin says:
        “. . .the handful of Tesla cars that burnt enough slowly to let their owner to go out with no harm. . .”

        That’s little consolation to the family of Tesla owners whose Tesla cars burned quickly while their owners were trapped inside and died.

        Tell that to the family of the Tesla owner from Indianapolis who was burned alive in his Tesla after it crashed. His Tesla immediately exploded after the impact and immediately started to burn with him trapped inside.

        Tell that to the family of the CPA Tesla owner whose Tesla drove off a Malibu Canyon road in California and burned to the ground with the owner trapped inside.

    3. SJC says:

      It’s not efficient.
      It’s not environmental.

      Neither are ICEs, they will be with us the next 30+ years.

      1. Serial anti tesla troll thomas says:

        The batteries of the EVs are even less environment and efficient.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Well, they would be if you burned them to power your car… which is the only way you could get your ridiculous claim to be true!

          Unlike gasoline or compressed hydrogen, battery packs are expected to last the life of the car, or at worst replaced only once. There are not a lot of people driving gasmobiles or fool cell cars who expect one tank of fuel to last the life of the car! 😉

          1. SparkEV says:

            You are feeding the troll, which is “even less environment and efficient.”

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              Well, yes and no. Actual Internet trolls are motivated by the sadistic pleasure they get from upsetting people, which is why if you ignore them, they go away.

              Contrariwise, those who post propaganda motivated by greed are not so easily dissuaded. I think most or all of those who persist in repeatedly posting fool cell fanboy propaganda, even after the facts and the scientific impossibilities have been pointed out to them, is motivated by greed; by the idea that this somehow is going to help them make money, either directly (because they’re a paid shill, or because their living is dependent on a salary from Big Oil) or because they think it will help their stock investments.

              1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

                Poo-Poo said:
                “Actual Internet trolls are motivated by the sadistic pleasure they get from upsetting people. . .”

                Now that’s the voice of experience speaking. Who would know better than you. Nobody! Poo-Poo, you’re by far the biggest troll on InsideEVs. It’s not even close. You must live such a sad and lonely life, but I don’t feel sorry for you since you actually relish and enjoy being a troll. You’re pathetic. 🙁

                1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                  Fool cell fanboy Sven appears to have mixed up the words “you” and “I” in his rant. 😉

                  “Pronoun trouble!” — Daffy Duck, “Rabbit Seasoning”

                  1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

                    No you’re the troll. You always were a troll. You always will be a troll. It’s who you are and what you do.

    4. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      That anyone is still claiming that fool cell technology is not a dead end, is either an indication of just how many Big Oil shills there are working on the Internet, or just how persistent the wishful thinking of the scientifically illiterate is… or both.

      Probably by now, thousands of comments have been written in response to articles on InsideEVs about fool cell cars. And in the years since that first article appeared here, not one single thing has changed regarding how utterly impractical and absurdly wasteful it is to use compressed hydrogen as an everyday fuel is, now and forever.

      “If only the world weren’t governed by the unfair and cruel laws of thermodynamics and economics, the hydrogen economy could rule the world.” — HVACman, comment at InsideEVs.com, July 8, 2015

    5. M. Reda says:

      Water is the fuel of the future.
      Wait few more years and you going to see your car use water as fuel of the future. Top notch university research laboratories, government research laboratories, private energy companies and the auto industries are spending billions to find that dream photo catalyst that can use the sun energy to split water into clean hydrogen and oxygen, to be used as feed for the fuel cell of the car. The roof of the cars will be covered with this photo-catalyst.

  2. RAV4 EV says:

    Come on Hyundai why waste all the time and money on this project.

    Just give us a PHEV Tuscan 35mi EV range with 550mi over all range. No huge funding for infrastructure required. We can just charge at home.

    NPNS

  3. They just can’t give it up, can’t they? Someone with the power please tell them that FCV is a dead end and to finally move on!

    1. Dave86 says:

      What disappoints me is that while the Japanese and Koreans have been chasing this stupid hydrogen dream, the Americans have not taken full advantage. The best battery technology is still manufactured by Japanese and Korean companies, not American.

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      It is a disappointment to see Hyundai claim it’s going to persist in throwing money down this rathole. I’d have thought that with Daimler giving official notice that it’s abandoning fool cell tech, the other auto makers would finally face up to reality, or at least seriously reconsider their development plans for more fool cell cars.

      Well, Toyota has persisted in this madness for years, to the point that they have ignored R&D into developing BEVs or robust plug-in PHEVs. Perhaps Hyundai is afflicted with the same corporate madness.

      But the question isn’t if auto makers will eventually give up on beating their heads against the wall of reality, physics, and economics; the only question is how soon.

    3. zzzzzzzzzz says:

      It is easy to tell them, and you can do it too.
      Just invent some magic battery or supercapacitor that would be able to go into production next year, and provide $20/kWh storage that can be recharged in 3 minutes, like this evil hydrogen does. They will cease in desist in no time and will stop spoiling the Great World Savior Saint Elon story.

      Please let us know immediately once you do it, we will rejoice together 😉

      1. SparkEV says:

        Actually, if H costs equivalent to 70 MPG gas car and home “charging” device for about $1000 to get about 200 miles range in 12 hours, I would seriously consider it. Since making H at home using electricity will cost lot more, it would have to be some other way to make H at home.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        “Just invent some magic battery or supercapacitor that would be able to go into production next year, and provide $20/kWh storage that can be recharged in 3 minutes, like this evil hydrogen does.”

        Why? Today’s PEVs (Plug-in EVs) already easily out-compete the few fool cell cars which are actually on the market, and tomorrow’s PEVs will be even better. PEVs don’t need to compete with your fantasy fool cell car which doesn’t exist and never will.

        Battery tech is improving rapidly. Hydrogen isn’t a technology; it’s an element, so can never be improved.

  4. WARREN says:

    Pretty nice body design though. If the new LEAF looked like this, it would sell like hotcakes.

  5. ffbj says:

    Hydrogen is dead to me.

    1. SJC says:

      Well as long as you are not pleased everyone should just give up.

      1. ffbj says:

        Since there are alternatives for vehicular transportation, that are far superior, yes.

        1. SJC says:

          The arrogance of “I’m not pleased” is obvious.

  6. philip d says:

    ” the Hyundai ix35 Fuel Cell is officially rated under the NEDC test cycle as having a range of 369 miles per fill. The EPA, meanwhile, lists the range of the Hyundai Tucson as being 265 miles per fill”

    This is clearly the more lenient NEDC rating. Using the same conversion as above this would give it around 360 miles range EPA.

  7. Four Electrics says:

    Note that many of the newer California H2 stations (which will soon total 61) make their hydrogen on-site via electrolysis. California recently hit 50% of daily electricity production from renewables, which has often caused wholesale electricity rates to go negative.

    In combination, you have H2 production which is not only 100% renewable, and made on-site with little additional infrastructure, but which is less than free: utilities can literally pay these stations to make hydrogen.

    That is the beauty of cheap renewables: surplus energy can be cheaply stored indefinitely via hydrogen, at a much lower marginal rate than batteries. No battery is cheaper then another storage tank or salt cavern.

    1. Jason says:

      Sounds like they should be giving away the hydrogen on this case. That will be a game changer if the hydrogen was free, just pay for the car and free driving for life, better than Tesla’s original SC deal.

    2. Four Electrics says:

      https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/htac_may2012_siemens.pdf

      According to this study, a single hydrogen salt cavern can store up to 240,000 MWh of surplus renewable energy.

      1. Get Real says:

        And for storage of H2 for stored power generation it might have some use cases (of course pumped hydro is much more efficient).

        However, the production of H2 with renewable electricity is still grossly inefficient and that will never change due to the inherent physics.

        The market will decide of course and I wouldn’t bet on H2 except in real edge cases where pumped hydro and other cheaper solutions are not easily built.

        1. John says:

          The inefficiency doesn’t matter if the electricity is clean and free! Just think of the sun and how much energy is “wasted”..

        2. zzzzzzzzzz says:

          “where pumped hydro and other cheaper solutions are not easily built.”

          And they can be built almost nowhere if you look at numbers instead of copy/pasting advocacy points :/ Pumped hydro exists in minuscule amounts, and there are few places with right geography to build more for cheap. Building it in any random plains would cost way too much.
          On the other hand, gaseous fuel storage provides both electric and thermal energy needs over winter, and (together with coal too) powers your house and battery car regardless of atmospheric conditions. Hydrogen can use this storage too.

          1. Get Real says:

            Fool cell lunatic zzzz foaming at the mouth and carpet-bombing the fool cell threads again like he was sven, as usual claims pumped hydro can’t be built!

            Here is proving you wrong (which is easy BTW):

            http://gas2.org/2017/04/09/400-megawatt-pumped-hydro-facility-coming-montana/

    3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Isn’t it amazing how most or all of the fool cell fanboy posts are written by EV bashers and/or Tesla short-sellers?

      It’s almost like they have an ulterior motive for posting fool cell fanboy propaganda which they know perfectly well is full of untruths and half-truths.

      1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

        Conspiracy man, it is all conspiracy. Big oil bought everybody, and they are conspiring to take over the world. Did you noticed how many chemtrails are in the sky recently?? THEY ARE COMING! Only the true world saver like Elon can save you from evil shorts!

        1. Get Real says:

          And which Big Oil company do you work for zzzz???

    4. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Fool cell fanboy Four Electrics said:

      “In combination, you have H2 production which is not only 100% renewable… but which is less than free:”

      So… if it’s “less than free”, does that mean they’ll pay fool cell car drivers to put it into their fuel tanks?

      You know, there is bullsh!t… and then there is unbelievable bullsh!t! I think fool cell fanboys get so used to lying that they can’t tell the difference anymore.

  8. David Murray says:

    How much of that range would I effectively loose by having to drive miles out of my way to refill it?

    1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

      Just don’t buy H2 car if you need to drive out of way to fill it. You should know better for yourself. For many real customers however, a station would be on their way to home/school/shop, and they would loose 0 minutes going out of way.

      1. SparkEV says:

        Quick filling is the selling point of H, but if you can only fill near where you live, BEVs are just as good. For longer trips, simply rent a gasser, and that’s true with BEV and FCEV.

  9. Mark.ca says:

    Some of you are really missing the mark here. I’m a big fan of electric (actually have an electric and solar) and its many obvious advantages but if technology comes around and we are able to make H (there are prototypes at work now, expensive prototypes) at home then that is it for electrics! You add a small H tank on board and lose the heavy battery…how is that not better? This is technology people, live in the present but think in the futute.

    1. Damocles Axe says:

      Mark, It is not better because consumers have a choice. They can take renewable energy, put it in their car battery, and later get 90% of the energy back for driving. Putting the same energy into H2, compressing it into a tank, and converting it into electricity using a fuel cell – gets only ~40% of the energy back. A fuel cell WASTES ~50% energy!

      1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

        Damocles Axe”
        “They can take renewable energy, put it in their car battery, and later get 90% of the energy back for driving.”

        You can’t put intermittent solar/wind energy into car battery. It is the whole point, Tesla fanboys invent impossible energy path and promote it as some advantage. You need long term STORAGE to use solar/wind. Once you start talking about storage and how much money, energy, and pollution takes to produce the battery, and how many cycles this battery can do, your argument goes out of window.
        Hydrogen enables STORAGE for cheap, and all the nat. gas infrastructure including season long storage is available with little changes. Storage is bottleneck, not some PV panels like decade ago. PV panels are below $0.40/W now from factory, and going to $0.25/W, intermittent electricity from them can be very cheap, but storage or grid balancing add too much cost.

        1. floydboy says:

          I completely disagree. You CAN in fact use intermittent sources through the use of BATTERIES! The bright side being, that you don’t have to deal with explosive gases, high pressures or complex noisy equipment in your home. Solar/wind, to batteries, to car. Doesn’t get much better than that! In fact, ‘wk057’ over on TMC is doing just that. I imagine he’s NOT alone.

    2. mustang_sallad says:

      Small H2 tank? Have you ever looked at a Mirai? The car is heavy, only seats 4 people, and has little room for cargo. The notion that H2 vehicles are better than “bulky” batteries is a myth, and that myth is being busted now that products are on the market.

      Also, generating H2 at home is only going to make it painfully obvious to potential customers how much less efficient it is than plugging in an EV when they see how much their electricity bills sky rocket. It’s not just the electrolysis, it’s the compression as well. Not to mention the purchase price for all that equipment.

      H2 might work out for long distance travel, but it’ll never compete with electricity for daily driving.

      1. Get Real says:

        Also, H2 would be about the WORST fuel ever for a range extender application for EVs.

        Why?

        Because as the smallest molecule, H2 is very prone to leaking and its both invisible and explosive and even the flame when ignited is invisible (the heat is however still there)!

        Furthermore, it has such a low energy density it has to be highly compressed to make it useful as a mobile fuel (which takes extra energy to compress and keep cool) plus it embrittles metals on top of this.

        So, in a mainly unused range extender you have to design very robust systems to deal with all of H2s many difficulties and the H2 would be sitting unused for possibly lengthy periods of time in a vehicle as a range extender fuel.

        This is of course on top of the fact that producing, transporting and dispensing the H2 is itself highly inefficient and would take an entirely new and massively expensive infrastructure that would need to be built all over the country.

        Frankly, the physics simply don’t work for H2 as a widespread zero or even low carbon transportation fuel and the physics will NEVER change.

        This is why, despite the whining endorsements of the H2 shills here and that Big Oil companies like to encourage H2 as a solution, but when it comes to them actually investing in the extremely costly infrastructure they are conspicuously absent from actually building it!

        Instead they prefer to bribe politicians to subsidize trials which to Big Oil is really nothing more then a cheap (since they are not paying) way to divert attention away from the rapid technological and affordability strides being made in battery-based EV technology.

      2. zzzzzzzzzz says:

        mustang_sallad:
        “Have you ever looked at a Mirai?”
        Please update your talking points. Mirai is few years old and doesn’t represent latest FC technology, it advances quite fast.
        Check later Clarity FC, it seats 5 and FC size is no much different from ICE size.
        Sure trunk space is still compromised, but it is the same issue even in plain hybrid, not to mention plugin hybrid. Or 100k “pretend SUV” aka Model X that has 94 cubic feet passenger space, just like last generation Toyota Prius, and tries to cram 7 kids into these 94 cu.f.!

    3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “You add a small H tank on board and lose the heavy battery…how is that not better?”

      You’d likely have to spend 4 or 5 times as much on electricity to run a home hydrogen generator/compressor as the cost to charge batteries. Plus, you need a hydrogen generator/compressor/storage system that has the footprint of a small compact car (see link below), converting your two-car garage into a one-car garage. Plus, there’s the cost of such a system, which might well approach or even exceed the cost of an economy car.

      How is powering a car with batteries not better in very nearly every possible way, from purchase cost to running cost to space requirement to environmental impact?

      http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1108482_simplefuel-home-hydrogen-fuel-dispenser-wins-1-million-doe-prize

      1. Michael Will says:

        I also think efficiency and safety are an issue as is day to day convenience where just plugging in at night and full in the morning beats going to any kind of gas or charging station.

        But there are two problems that are being solved by hydrogen:

        1. Long distance road trip charging time, not sit and wait for 45 minutes each 300 miles. You can only have that many lunches and dinners a day.

        With faster battery charging this problem may go away soon though.

        2. Residential solar without net metering either requires super expensive amounts of battery that then is used to charge your car at night or wastes a lot of energy unused because you need to oversize it to produce sufficient amounts in the winter and have lots of excess in the summer.

        So there goes the energy efficiency argument for that use case.

        1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

          Michael Will said:
          “. . . day to day convenience where just plugging in at night and full in the morning beats going to any kind of gas or charging station.”

          I’m going to steal a page from the EV Advocate’s Playbook. In the future, HFCVs will autonomously drive to nearby hydrogen stations at night to fill up and then return home, giving HFCV owners an almost completely full tank of H2 every morning. This is analogous to how EV owners who don’t have access to a plug for night-time charging will supposedly charge their cars at night: having their EVs autonomously drive to a charging station at night to charge and then return home, giving EV owners an almost completely full battery every morning. 😀

        2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Michael Will said:

          “But there are two problems that are being solved by hydrogen:

          “1. Long distance road trip charging time, not sit and wait for 45 minutes each 300 miles. You can only have that many lunches and dinners a day.”

          No. Choosing a car dependent on a totally impractical fuel like hydrogen means you can never use it for a long trip. As someone already pointed out here, the area where those can be used is basically three counties in California. Driving outside the round-trip range will just leave you stranded, so how does that 8-10 minute refill time help you? It doesn’t.

          “2. Residential solar without net metering either requires super expensive amounts of battery that then is used to charge your car at night or wastes a lot of energy unused because you need to oversize it to produce sufficient amounts in the winter and have lots of excess in the summer.”

          That’s a pretty silly argument. All that sunshine that’s not falling on solar cells is already being “wasted”, according to your definition, so who cares? The per-watt price of solar cells continues to fall, and so does the installation cost. Installing sufficient solar panel coverage to provide most or all your energy needs both winter or summer, rain or shine, will soon be the norm for all new houses, and probably for most one- or two-story commercial buildings too.

          “So there goes the energy efficiency argument for that use case.”

          I always find it amusing how “hydrogen economy” advocates try to handwave away the efficiency argument.

          Tell you what: Next time you fill up your tank with gas — either gasoline or H2 — just lay the nozzle on the ground and run out two or three times as much fuel as you put in your tank. Why should you care about wasting it, or how much it costs? Efficiency doesn’t matter, right? 🙄

  10. zzzzzzzzzz says:

    Pure EM culties and trolls, how it is frustrating that the world doesn’t go your way and worship the One True Leader with the One and the Only True Way to save this planet! And another planet afterwards!!!

    How it is unfair these pesky Hydrogen-Air cells are cheaper, lighter and cleaner than the True ones from True Leader’s world saving business, and can be recharged in 3 minutes 🙁
    http://imgur.com/a/XvFOj

    But don’t despair, trash it as much as you can, maybe you will turn the clocks back to 1900s.

    1. Jason says:

      That’s a nice link, I think the real paradigm shift has been the fact you can charge at home, so we really need to see that solution as well. Apart from a couple times per year, my driving is all local and easily achieved in the Leaf. I charge at home on 240v/10A power, net cost of infrastructure is nil as the charger cord came with the vehicle.

      For the few times I go outside the range, it is to a location where I can plug into a socket using the supplied EVSE, so still no additional infrastructure cost.

      Of course I recognise the need for long range travel, but just highlighting for a lot of use case charging at home is all that is needed.
      While HEV are pretty scarce at the moment, I have not heard of any accidents involving them, but once they are prevalent, my biggest concern is how they will perform in a major accident. What happens if the tank is ruptured and there are sparks? Time will tell.

      Lithium is a finite resource, which concerns me, but I read that natural gas is used for H production, so it seems that one fossil fuel is replaced with another. Until water is being used for the H production and recycle as per the science claims, I don’t see any long term advantage in either solution.

      1. floydboy says:

        There is no way in hell I’d be shaking and jiggling 10,000 psi lines, fittings, tanks and valves! Especially if they’re carrying something as volatile as hydrogen gas! A stationary fuel cell setup is one thing, a mobile one bouncing over potholes and bumps, or subject to possible collisions is quite another!

        1. Dave86 says:

          You’re not parking one of those in my garage. I don’t even like the idea of my next door neighbor parking one in his/her garage.

        2. SparkEV says:

          So true! When they can’t even seal CFC in car’s AC system to last 5 years, there’s going to be lot more leaking in much smaller H molecules. If you saw some jalopies passing off as “cars” on the road today, such worn out old HFCEV will have lots of H leakage.

          I wonder if they’re going to mandate “H check” like they do with SMOG checks. For public safety, that may be required.

          1. floydboy says:

            They’d have to. CFCs collecting in spaces in the car aint no biggie, an electricity leak from the battery of a BEV might be concerning, an electricity leak from the battery of a hydrogen fuel cell car, oh yeah!

      2. zzzzzzzzzz says:

        Jason,

        It is nice that you can charge at home and have access to cheap enough electricity. I believe many others can do it to and BEVs would be great for them for commuting and as city cars, and would benefit environment as long as battery is kept small, and you don’t need to expand child slave labor in Congo to get every last bit of Cobalt out of ground to make few millions long range BEVs per year.

        Still, it isn’t solution for everyone. Many around the world don’t have such home charging option as you and need alternatives. Longer range trips are quite common too, long range trucking, etc.

        As for the high pressure scary-mongering, it isn’t new and your don’t need to wait and see something. It is tested and it is already used in practice, CNG is used by millions of cars, buses and trucks around the world. Common Rail diesels in big trucks use up to 300 MPa pressures, several times more than 70 MPa at hydrogen station, and they are all over the place on roads. Hydrogen is actually safer than gasoline, it doesn’t have explosive air-gas mixture in tank, tank is much stronger and in case of leak goes up very quickly instead of staying on ground.

    2. Get Real says:

      Keep trolling zzzzzz because in about a year you won’t want to leave your mom’s basement because of all the Model 3s that will be rolling around.

      1. Serial anti tesla troll thomas says:

        Haha Serial-pro-Tesla-troll “Get Real” is dreaming of a Tesla World ???

      2. Serial anti tesla troll thomas says:

        …because all these Model 3 drivers are looking for a free Supercharger

      3. zzzzzzzzzz says:

        Happy Sunday and have a great free time spent in line at Super-puper-charger with Model 3! May the luck be with you and the line be short, just an hour or two, and the charger wont drop to some 30 kW as some non-believers slander it does for random reasons! If you believe these slanderers, you would have hard time reaching your destination reliably during weekend trip. What a nonsense from evil shorts and Big Oil Shills! Model 3 will have Hyper-space support option to overcome all obsticles, I heard website update to collect $10,000 for this future option is already in works! No hydrogen car will be able to match Hyperspace jumps, Tesla will rule the world!

    3. arne-nl says:

      Nice piece of H2 propaganda you got there.

      It says the WTW renewable share for an EV is 27% and for an FCEV 90%. Wow, magical thinking at its best. No evidence required.

      We all know that all of today’s hydrogen comes from steam reformation of methane, but they just magically think up some fancy ‘renewable hydrogen’ created with electricity from solar/wind. Electricity that cannot be used to charge an electric car. Of course not, that would spoil the nice infographic because then EV’s would have 100% WTW renewable.

      1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

        There are few stations in California and more in Europe that use 100% renewable hydrogen. It becomes 90% once you account for delivery and dispensing that use non-renewable energy. It is documented and you can find these facts online. What you “know” from Tesla fanboy blogs trashing competitors doesn’t count.

        You can’t build renewable fast charger in practice. Peak power is just too high. You need to rely on electric grid that will stay coal and nat. gas powered for foreseeable future, power plant life time is many decades.
        You can only charge at home from PV solar if you work at night or your PV solar works from moonshine when get from work. Doesn’t apply to the most of world population though.

    4. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Fool cell fanboy zzzzzzzzzz said:

      “How it is unfair these pesky Hydrogen-Air cells are cheaper, lighter and cleaner than the True ones from True Leader’s world saving business, and can be recharged in 3 minutes…”

      Cheaper? Cleaner? Recharged in 3 minutes?

      You know, zzzzzzzzz, it helps if you mix at least a bit of truth in with the Big Lies you keep repeating.

      1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

        Pu-pu as usual can’t say anything on substance, just more diversion to personal attacks. The numbers are obvious and you can’t dispute them in logical way, only vent your emotions.
        1. 2-4 minutes 0-100% refueling – fact, recorded by California government from retail stations monitoring. Official statistics is available online.
        2. Station cost per car is also well documented fact. Last week Canada government ordered 2 hydrogen stations, cost to the government 1.6 mln. VW proposed 150-350 kW 5 stall charger sites would cost over million each, and you need yet to invent and produce car batteries that can take these 350 kW at least to 80% at reasonable cost, not even mention 100% state of charge.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          I hope no one is taken in by zzzzzzzzzz’s lies. But for anyone who has the slightest doubt, there are many places on the Internet where you can find the Truth about the “hydrogen economy” and why it’s impossible for fool cell cars fueled by compressed hydrogen to ever be practical. Here are a couple of good examples:

          http://phys.org/news85074285.html

          https://web.archive.org/web/20150419031629/http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/hydrogen-economy-fuel+cell/480

  11. DNAinaGoodWay says:

    I couldn’t even consider a FCEV until there was an extensive network of renewable based H2 stations. Then, the vehicle would have to be competitive with the BEVs available at that time, which could be what, 2030, 2040?

  12. floydboy says:

    Look how that car is jacked up in the air and riding on oversized shiny wheels! That’s a pimps car! I say no taxpayer money to build hydrogen stations for pimps!

    They either pay to build their own, or they have to SUFFER like the rest of us and drive an electric.

  13. Dr. Miguelito Loveless says:

    500 miles range? So, that would be a real world range of maybe 350 miles, which means you can drive 175 miles before you have to turn around and go back to one of the dozen or so H2 fuel stations in the US.

    1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

      Your facts are woefully out of date. I’ll have you know that there are over two dozen H2 fueling stations in the US.

      1. Get Real says:

        And I’ll have you know that there are over 31,000 public charging sites in the US and since many of them have multiple chargers the number is actually much greater.

  14. K A CHEAH says:

    HYDROGEN(H2)PRODUCTION TAKES MORE ELECTRICAL ENERGY AND POWER TO EXTRACT FROM WATER(H2O)INEFFICIENTLY UNLESS AN ADVANCED INVENTION WITH A SPECIAL CATALYST TO DO THE EXTRACTION SEPARATION OF H2 FROM H2O WITH LESSER ENERGY POWER CONSUMPTION THE WHOLE IDEA OF USING H2 IN FUEL CELLS IS NOT VIABLE OWING TO ALL ENERGY POWER DEFICITS IN H2 PRODUCTION,STORAGE COMPRESSION AND DECOMPRESSION LOSSES AND FUEL CELLS’ ELECTRICAL ENERGY AND POWER PRODUCTION EFFICIENCY LOSSES THAT THE FOOL’S CELL PRODUCES TO RUN THE ELECTRIC VEHICLES(EV).

  15. arne-nl says:

    Someone should tell Hyundai that it is not about range.

    “It’s the infrastructure, stupid”

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      The almost insanely high cost (per car) for hydrogen fueling station infrastructure is only one of several unsolvable problems with fool cell cars.

      I think it would be better to say “It’s the hydrogen, stupid.”

    2. floydboy says:

      There’s only a couple of ways to get 500 miles(805 kilometers) out of this thing. Bigger tanks or higher pressures. If it’s at 10,000 psi now, what the heck kind of pressures are they considering?!

      1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

        floydboy,

        I would assume it is NEDC range, it was Geneva, not US. It may be 350-400 mile EPA. Just like 366 mile Honda Clarity FC, it uses later generation more efficient FC than older Toyota Mirai and the size is not much different from V6 in Accord, fits under hood. SUV/crossover form factor allows for a bit more space for tanks.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Actually, if my understanding is correct, some or most fool cell cars in production use twin tanks. So for a larger car, all they would need to do is to add another tank or two. Sure, it’s gonna take more space, but then it’s a larger car.

        Not everything about fool cell cars is foolish or wholly impractical. Just most of it!

  16. Wenglishboy says:

    A UK based company called ITM has successfully initiated discussions and trials with a major gas supplier on using the capacity in the network to store copious amounts of hydrogen. I speculate as this is in the main gas lines the infrastructure problems will no longer exist. And seeing as the UK only has around 20 years or so of gas coming from the north , what an intelligent way forward to use the excess pipelines. Millions of cars on a motorway all queuing to use the 45min chargers somehow I don’t see that happening. Maybe at best people will own EV car for local and HFCV for the long journey’s but then again why bother with the EV if the HFCV does it all. Common sense will rule the day. IMHO start investing in hydrogen easy money to be had.

    1. floydboy says:

      You DO NOT put hydrogen into standard steel pipes and containers! You split your energy source, in this case, natural gas(why do it is another question) pull out the hydrogen, clean it up and store it in a separate container for retrieval. Remember, hydrogen is highly explosive and reactive enough to embrittle some metals and tiny enough to leak right through the tiniest seams.

      As such, it must be handled with greater care than the natural gas from which it’s derived. You’re also looking at the way in which EVs are being used, incorrectly. The ubiquity, ease of implementation costs, ease of use, efficiency and environmental advantages, all go to electricity in batteries over manufacturing hydrogen!

      It’s much easier and convenient to just plug in at home or work than to travel to get fuel. It’s cheaper and safer to build a bunch of street or parking lot charger posts, similar to parking meters, than it is to build a big hydrogen station! For efficiency and cost, NOTHING is going to beat coming directly off your energy source to your battery!

      You ARE correct in that common sense will rule the day. Difficult to make cheaply, store and utilize hydrogen will Have to yield to more direct, cheaper, cleaner and efficient batteries!

      1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

        > It’s cheaper and safer to build a bunch of street or parking lot charger posts, similar to parking meters, than it is to build a big hydrogen station!

        Multiple exclamation points and emotional style doesn’t help to prove your point more than numbers and serious scientific studies that tell as otherwise.

        1. floydboy says:

          Okay zzzzzzzzzz, what’s the stated cost of a hydrogen station today, around 1 1/2 to 2 million? Because of compression needs, they’re stated(Green Car Reports, August 26, 2015) to handle around 30 to 40 cars a day(24hrs). We’re not going to include the cost of fuel, that would be grossly unfair! Now let’s look at this from a common sense standpoint.

          A hydrogen station, with its associated infrastructure of tanks, pumps, pipes, dehumidifiers, filters and compressors CANNOT match the cost of even a high power charging station with only a transformer and a controller. A Tesla 10 stall station(about 120 cars a day) with added solar, was estimated at only $300,000 in the same GCR report I listed earlier. A lower power L2(don’t need fast charging if the car’s just sitting) that’s tied to the same power running the street lights is going to be LOT cheaper than $2,000,000!(unless they’re gold plated)

          1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

            You need to update your information from some serious studies, not 2 year old fanboy site post trashing competitors. DOE has done some extensive studies on the subject, you can read them online.

            As for practice, H2Logic CAR-200 station can dispense 100 kg over 3 peak hours. This is still low capacity station for initial deployment, and as such is expensive per kg/day. It takes about 1 mln Euros from public funds to build it in Europe.

            10 stall 5 charger (2 stalls per charger), 144*5=720 kW max total output Tesla station would approximately match CAR-200 for peak output. $300k cost is a bit of dream, whatever Tesla claims their charger book value, when asking $100k for a car. If you look at VW proposed charger plan, or California government funded highway electrification, it costs more to put even single 50 kW charger every 70 miles (range limit here) on green field sites over the same highway length. There is much more in decent charging station cost than just charger equipment.
            And in return you will get painfully slow and unreliable charging, that is OK for enthusiasts but unlikely to be accepted by general population, leaving gas cars to rule the world.

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Wenglishboy:

      You really need to learn more about a technology before engaging in debate about it. It’s impossible to use existing natural gas pipelines and storage tanks to carry and store compressed hydrogen.

      What you are likely talking about is that some utilities are stretching out existing supplies of natural gas by adding up to (if I recall correctly) 15% hydrogen by volume. This can be done using existing infrastructure.

      It is physically impossible to replace all or even most of the natural gas by doing that. If you knew more about the physical properties of hydrogen, you’d understand why, and you’d understand why compressed hydrogen can never possibly become a practical everyday fuel.

      1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

        Pu-pu,

        You are telling it to a person who is likely from UK. UK, Germany, other European countries have used syn-gas (aka town gas) that is half hydrogen since XIX century, and had gas pipes in every apartment. Only later, well after WWII it was replaced by cheaper natural gas.

        Do you realize how dumb you sound Pu-pu?

  17. JIMJFOX says:

    Wonder what happened to this–
    https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13431-invention-non-explosive-hydrogen-storage/

    Links not functioning- assume the thing died a while ago

    1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

      Hydride storage doesn’t have much advantages for cars over pressure tank storage. I.e. it doesn’t allow to achieve higher densities at acceptable cost and convenience. DOE has whole program about H2 storage, you can read about all the options and their achievements online.

      LOHC (liquid chemical) hydrogen storage has started commercial deployment. But it is for delivery only, and advantages are dubious, even if the company that promotes it is very optimistic.
      For storing inside the transport tank LOHC doesn’t have good enough density.

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Hydride storage for hydrogen fuel sounds promising on paper, but has unsolvable problems in reality. The chemical reaction of the hydride is very exothermic; that is, it releases a lot of heat. This limits how fast a tank could be filled; limits it to a rate too slow to make it practical.

      Conversely, releasing the H2 at a useful rate would require heating the hydride, and where is that energy going to come from? It must be provided by something onboard… which of course would be yet another loss of efficiency for the fool cell car, which is already crippled with horrible efficiency.

      And you really don’t want something red-hot in your hydrogen storage tank while filling up, now do you? I’m not one to exaggerate the dangers of using hydrogen fuel, unlike many, but in this particular case… BOOM! 😯

      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319914002389

  18. JIMJFOX says:

    Those companies putting their money into H2 research are to be applauded. I hope something useful eventuates.

    I’ve ‘banged on’ a bit about MSR’s being the long term future of power generation; H2 can be produced as a by-product along with desalination
    using excess reactor heat.

    Such engineering is better than the fusion reactor tomfoolery, billions wasted on that pipedream.

  19. Shawn Marshall says:

    It is senseless to attack the development of fuel cell technologies. If FCV do not eventually compete economically the magic hand of the market will send them away. Gee, that is what happened to the original electric cars and now they are back. Only a fool would claim to know what the technology may eventually produce. I saw this type of hubris for years on GM-volt.com where self anointed experts wrongly predicted everything about BEVs and fast charging and etc. Why do people think they must be right about technology development. Only time and the market will tell. Kudos to those companies who deploy capital in the hopes of discovering new and beneficial technologies for modern life.

    1. Michael Will says:

      Markets hands get forced by billions of folllars from fossil fuel industry that does not want the customers escape the dependency. Just plug in at night and full in the morning as works today must be a nightmare to them. Hope they lose anyways.

      1. floydboy says:

        Hear, hear! Don’t mind anyone pursuing ANY technology they like. It’s when these oil companies, who’ve been siphoning tax money for over a hundred years and have amassed vast amounts of wealth, cry “poor mouth”. They use their wealth and power to manipulate government direction and outcomes to get their ‘hydrogen economy’ built at taxpayer expense, rather than coming out of their more than adequate pockets themselves! All in an effort to, as you point out Michael, maintain DEPENDENCY.

        One can argue the merits, factual claims or even the logic behind the push for hydrogen, but one cannot deny that there is PURPOSE here! That purpose is NOT our overwhelming need to have hydrogen, but theirs to sell it to us again, after we’ve already paid for it in massive infrastructure costs!

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “Only a fool would claim to know what the technology may eventually produce.”

      How many times do we have to say it? The problem isn’t with the fuel cell technology itself; the problem is with the fuel used to power them.

      “It’s the hydrogen, stupid!”

  20. Roy LeMeur says:

    Though I continue to wonder why fool cell articles are here at InsideEvs, I do enjoy reading the snarky comments and adding to them occasionally.

    Gotta go. I’m off to the ethanol station 🙂

    1. Dave86 says:

      LOL – but yes, I agree with you.

      Fuel cells for automotive use are the dead horse that has been beaten so many times that it is no longer usable as dog food.

  21. Get Real says:

    Bottom line is until and if the Big Oil companies start paying for and building H2 stations widely you can rest assured that there will be no H2 “highways”!

    And, I’m still waiting for that to happen

Leave a Reply