Hyundai Planning New Dedicated Fuel Cell SUV

1 year ago by Mark Kane 103

Hyundai ix35 Fuel Cell

Hyundai ix35 Fuel Cell

Hyundai Tucson ix35 at hydrogen refuelling station

Hyundai Tucson ix35 at hydrogen refuelling station

Hyundai intends to launch a dedicated hydrogen fuel cell car and it’s speculated that it could be SUV.

As of today, the Korean company offers the ix35 Fuel Cell, which is based on a conventional model.

The new bespoke car will have even longer range of up to 500 miles (800 km) compared to up to 375 miles/600 km today. And top speed will be increased from 100 mph to 110 mph.

Customer feedback is indicating a need for more boot space and this is one of the reasons why it could be an SUV.

Sae-Hoon Kim, Hyundai-Kia’s head of hydrogen fuel cell research, said to Autocar that “Battery and fuel cell will co-exist, but fuel cell is the best powertrain for larger vehicles.

Now, we need just couple years to check Tesla Model X and Audi Q6 BEV versus hydrogen fuel cell SUVs to hopefully dispel the thesis.

Source: Autocar

Tags: , ,

103 responses to "Hyundai Planning New Dedicated Fuel Cell SUV"

  1. jelloslug says:

    I think the bigger customer feedback problem is actually being about to refuel it somewhere.

  2. jerryd says:

    Sadly it doesn’t seem like they can learn. They couldn’t even sell the ones they made for the US.
    And with fuel costs of $14/gal/KG with little chance of it dropping much, just whom is going to buy these wasteful, 1kwhr/mile, costly energy hogs?

    1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

      Estimated hydrogen price at pump is $2-4/kg at pump WHEN it will scale up to mass market level. 5 kg hydrogen tank takes you 300+ miles, it would be $10-$20. It is not much different from retail electricity cost that you need to use for 0.3 kWh/mile Model S. And retail electricity rate may be like $0.30/kWh in places like Europe.

      Hydrogen production costs are well known, hydrogen is used at large scale in oil refineries to remove sulfur from fuel and it is cheap. Small scale distribution is what raises the price.

      1. mustang_sallad says:

        Do you have a source for that 2-4$/kg price? I remember a Toyota spokesperson saying they hope to see H2 prices come down to the equivalent of gasoline some time in the future – that seems pretty pessimistic.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          His “source” is probably some think tank funded by Big Oil. It’s certainly not anything based on actual physics or actual economics.

          I’ve challenged promoters of the “hydrogen highway” to explain how they are gonna change the basic physical properties of hydrogen to make it into a practical, affordable fuel. For some odd reason, they never explain… 😉

          1. Three Electrics says:

            Here’s a source that confirms those cost numbers for renewable hydrogen:

            http://www.cesa.org/assets/2011-Files/Hydrogen-and-Fuel-Cells/CESA-Lipman-H2-prod-storage-050311.pdf

            1. Stimpy says:

              I looked at that file and see 4 areas that need to be improved to make even those estimates possible.

              On the other hand, no proof is needed for electricity production.

              1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

                If you read DOE reports from previous years, they do meet their targets more or less. And they always report what was was actually achieved.

          2. zzzzzzzzzz says:

            Try reading reports from DOE researchers if they are not too complicated for you, they explain everything very well. It is the same DOE that funded Argonne lab where NMC battery chemistry was invented, that made Chevy Bolt possible – the first almost usable mass market battery car.

            If it is too complicated, you may stick to conspiracy theories about “Big Oil Hydrogen lobby” and emotional youtube movies or whatever, and firmly believe what you want to believe. But your beliefs has nothing to physics.

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              Actual physicists disagree. See, for example, the link below. This isn’t a matter of opinion, but of well established scientific fact.

              I’m sad to see a link to the “Clean Energy States Alliance”, which according to its members, appears to be supported by various State agencies, and not directly by Big Oil. We know that Big Oil lobbying has great influence on the government, and this is a symptom of that. Government agencies have policy set by politicians, not scientists. That’s even true at the DOE.

              But let’s not forget what former Secretary of Energy Steven Chu said about the possibility of hydrogen powered cars perhaps someday being practical: “If you need four miracles, that’s unlikely: saints only need three miracles.”

              You can deny reality all you like, zzzzzzzzzz. The Internet is a great place for posting wrong-headed ideas, because there are no consequences to ignoring the laws of physics or being flat-out wrong.

              However, those who actually build and operate hydrogen fueling stations don’t have the luxury of ignoring the laws of physics, nor can they ignore the economic reality that the EROI of renewable hydrogen is about 10 times worse than the current average EROI for gasoline.

              Those realities are a large part of the reason that actual installation of hydrogen fueling stations lag behind the unrealistic plans of those promoting the “hydrogen economy”. Those realities are also a large part of why so many hydrogen fueling stations remain closed for much of the time; they’re just not practical to operate.

              That situation won’t change; there is no magic by which wishful thinking is going to suddenly make hydrogen fuel either practical or affordable.

              1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                Oops, omitted the link to the article written by actual physicists:

                http://phys.org/news/2006-12-hydrogen-economy-doesnt.html

                Here’s a more recent analysis from Clean Technia, in case anyone is suffering from the delusion that the laws of physics have changed since 2006:

                http://cleantechnica.com/2014/06/04/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-about-not-clean/

        2. zzzzzzzzzz says:

          http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress15/ii_0_miller_2015.pdf
          “Based on
          current analysis, this translates to a hydrogen cost target of <$4/kg hydrogen (produced, delivered, and dispensed, but
          untaxed) by 2020
          , with <$2/kg apportioned for production only
          "
          I think it doesn't cover methane cracking that leaves solid, not gaseous carbon. It is not mature technology, but promising and cost analysis suggest something like $2/kg production price too.

      2. SparkEV says:

        $2-4/kg is way too optimistic. But let’s say it’s possible from Nat gas with scale. How do you get there? With BEV, there were plenty of uses for batteries to help it along both in cost and innovation. Not so with H. There is no other mass use for H other than FCEV.

        Of course, that could change if some magic happens; H for laptops? Not likely any time soon, if ever.

        1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

          No mass use of hydrogen? What do you mean? There is no mass use at retail level, but it is $100 billion industry in the US. It is used in every refinery to remove sulfur from fuel.

          1. AH HA! Now we know why there is a push for FCEVs that don’t make sense (on so many levels)… since generating the H2 to remove S from fossil fuels is now a sunset industry, they needed something else to consume the H2 produced by all that existing infrastructure!

            1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

              Yeah sure. World wide conspiracy man! Illuminati are coming disguised as “hydrogen lobby” :/

          2. SparkEV says:

            $100B? Is that why it cost almost $70 for 5kg? There’s very little use for H, and trying to convince people to drive $13/gal equivalent will be tough sell other than government banning gasoline. well, I suppose THAT could happen…

          3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            zzzzzzzzzz said:

            “No mass use of hydrogen? What do you mean? There is no mass use at retail level, but it is $100 billion industry in the US. It is used in every refinery to remove sulfur from fuel.”

            Thank you for removing any doubt that you’re acting as a mouthpiece for Big Oil.

        2. SJC says:

          A kilo of hydrogen is made from $1 of natural gas, reforming and compression adds some cost. There are more than 40 fueling stations in southern California.

  3. zzzzzzzzzz says:

    There are some refueling stations in Korea, Japan, Europe, California, and US North East will get them soon. It is very far from perfect, but you don’t need to be perfect to launch something.
    I don’t see how Model X can be superior to fuel cells that are getting improved too. X range is still under 300 miles and if you tow something in bad weather, it is likely that you will not make to the next Tesla charger that may be 150-200 miles away. And then you need to spend 30-60 minutes charging, not very convenient. You may count on battery breakthrough that will double and tripple battery capacity and charging rate (Do you want to invest into Envia maybe like GM did? :////). But Musk himself bets there will not be any breakthroughs soon, just slow incremental progress.

    1. jelloslug says:

      The simple fact is that nobody is building H2 stations.

      1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

        Huh? They are being built right now and there are very specific plans what exactly is going to be built and when, and work is in progress. Network is not going to span whole US next year, but select markets will have enough of hydrogen stations.

        1. Ash09 says:

          Yeah, but who’s paying for it? I’m pretty sure automakers aren’t footing the entire bill to build the hydrogen stations. They’re mostly relying on the government to do it for them, aka taxpayers.

          Meanwhile, Tesla is paying for the Supercharger stations themselves, by charging their customers a fee to access it when they order the car. This despite the fact that they have a much, much smaller pocketbook than established automakers.

          I think people are willing to put up with the 15-30 minutes to recharge their car if it’s not costing them another penny after getting their Model S/X. Which is also enough time to grab a bite to eat and stretch their legs.

          1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

            Tesla is paying with taxpayer money essentially, and it doesn’t matter directly or not. They receive tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money for each their luxury car, and don’t even allow public access to their proprietary charging network. Please complain about this waste if you want to complain about wasted taxpayer money.

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              zzzzzzzzzz said:

              “Tesla… [receives] tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money for each their luxury car…”

              More Big Oil lies from one of their mouthpieces.

              That number is about as far off as your claim for $2/kg for hydrogen fuel.

            2. Fool Cells says:

              Tesla recieves no taxpayer money for each car sold. Where do you come up with such nonsense?

        2. jelloslug says:

          Sorry but the same ones that are “coming soon” have been that way for months and months with no changes at all. Face it, FC is DOA.

          1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

            You battery car fans are funny. Many world governments, experts and leading automakers are putting bets on fuel cells and you are still in denial. Are you so desperate because you feel threatened to become extinct as commodity price bubble exploded and battery cars can’t take more than 0.3% worldwide market? Don’t worry, hydrogen will not take your favorite toy from you, it is still long term project anyway. You will still be able to buy battery cars and their market share will increase to some extent. But no way batteries can do everything what hydrogen economy can do.

            1. jelloslug says:

              There is no such thing as a hydrogen economy. Japan is trying to force such a thing I their country ( and is also the largest customer for FC cars by the way) but no other country is even considering that route. In places like China they are actively going the EV route which leaves no room for someone as inefficient as a FC car. If it were 10 years ago FC might have a future but that window of opportunity is long gone.

        3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          zzzzzzzzzz said:

          “They [public hydrogen fueling stations] are being built right now and there are very specific plans what exactly is going to be built and when…”

          LOL! I see you’re still busy denying reality.

          What does Toyota have to say, specifically, about those “very specific” plans? As reported in another InsideEVs article:

          “There are 48 stations that are planned and funded by the state of California that are all in various stages of development. There are a handful of stations that already exist but we don’t consider those to be Mirai-friendly, if you will, they’re really not ready for prime time. Of the 48 that have been developed, two have been completed so far. Probably another eight or so that are in construction.” (see source below)

          So, zzzzzzzzzz, the gap between those “very specific” plans and reality is widening rapidly. In fact, before long the gap might be nearly as wide as that between actual science and actual economics, vs. your claims about how the cost and availability of hydrogen fuel will greatly improve in the future.

          source:
          http://insideevs.com/toyota-al-fuel-manager-hydrogen-infrastructure-lagging-todays-stations-mirai-friendly/

        4. Steven says:

          Get back to us when you can drive a hydrogen powered passenger vehicle (FC or ICE) from coast to coast, and do so for less than the price of gas.

          Until then, my next car is BEV.

    2. philip d says:

      “I don’t see how Model X can be superior to fuel cells that are getting improved too.”

      Performance. HFCVs still need to use a small battery pack as a power buffer since current fuel cells can only output about 150 hp max. in bursts. The battery allows for even longer bursts of power to supplement the fuel cell when needed. But even with this configuration the fuel cell vehicle is limited to the sustained output rating of the fuel cell stack since the battery is small just like those found in a standard non-plugin hybrid.

      The problem right now is that HFCVs use the same battery packs that PHEVs and EVs use so the output is limited to the cells’ c rate. Having such a small pack in a HFCV limits how much energy can discharge from a small pack resulting in a small assistance.

      Right now the best prototypes (not production ready)like the 4 seat Audi Q6 e-tron have a maximum peak burst output of around 300 hp which isn’t bad but won’t come close to the 7 seat Model X’s sustained on demand output for the regular non-performance model 90D of 518 hp.

      The estimated 0-60 time for the concept Q6 e-tron will be “under 7 seconds” while the base 90D is under 5 seconds.

      So to recap the Model X is available now and seats 7 with much better performance than the best performing HFCV prototype concept car out there that only seats 4. This is apples to apples in a way because the higher performing 4 seat Q6 e-tron won’t come cheap and will certainly cost pretty close to the base 90D Model X. In fact the Chevy Bolt will probably have as good a performance sustained as the Q6 e-trons burst output and the Bolt will seat 5 all while costing less than half that of the future possible Q6.

      And yes fuel cells are getting better but but if we are going to have that debate then it has to be acknowledged that EVs are improving rapidly as well. When these new round of improved HFCVs we are seeing as prototypes arrive in showrooms realistically the next gen of EVs like the Tesla Model 3 will be here which will also cost half but offer better performance and interior space.

      HFCV and their infrastructure are always playing catch up to EVs and it doesn’t seem like they are gaining ground. The only advantage they can brag about is range and refueling speed. I mean how often does anyone really need a 500 mile range? Most people don’t drive 4-5 hours without stopping anyway. That pretty much leaves refueling speed and by the time H2 infrastructure catches up then EVs will have that problem solved.

      1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

        Fuel cell car battery is small and relatively cheap and so you can formulate it any way, including maximum power density instead energy density. You may even use super-capacitors for some weird 0-60 record breaking niche car. It isn’t an issue for regular mass-market street cars. It would be an issue for race cars or wannabe race cars, but who cares about it really? Mass market is what makes difference.

        Sustained long term power is limited to fuel cell power, but you can’t use batteries for anything that requires high sustained long term power anyway, because their energy density is just too low. You may not even be able to reach next supercharger in 150 miles in Model X if you tow something in front wind at highway speed. Using batteries for heavy trucks isn’t even behind horizon until we have some fundamental breakthrough in battery technology that raises energy density and recharge rate by order of magnitude.

        Batteries are fine for local transportation and Chevy Bolt looks very promising and exciting. But if you need to keep spare gas car for longer road trips it kind of defeats the whole purpose of pushing this technology too much. While fuel cells can be scaled for many different purposes and all kinds of transport, and hydrogen may be used to store intermittent solar/gas energy for many months.

        1. Kumar says:

          You act as if there’s no fuel economy penalty for a FCV when it’s towing something. No matter the fuel source, that will be an issue with all cars. And a 500 mile range for an FCV is meaningless when there are only a small handful of stations in the country. Most people don’t even live within 500 miles of a station.

          1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

            Performance penalty doesn’t matter much if you can refill in 3 minutes. It costs extra, but car is still usable.
            Yes there is lack of hydrogen refill infrastructure. Nobody is disputing it. What infrastructure you can expect when very low production cars, still expensive, started selling just months ago? Infrastructure will come with time.

            1. jelloslug says:

              Refilling in 3 minutes is a myth.

            2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              zzzzzzzzzz said:

              “Performance penalty doesn’t matter much if you can refill in 3 minutes.”

              I don’t think there is a hydrogen fueling station in the world which can fully fill a “fool cell” car’s tank in three minutes. The most often cited filling time for a full tank is 10 minutes. Of course, if the hydrogen fueling station limits you to only half a tank, as often happens, then the *cough* advantage *cough* of that is it only takes about five minutes…

              10 minutes. It won’t be many years until BEVs recharge as fast as that, or faster.

        2. Kumar says:

          Also, EV heavy duty trucks are absolutely on the horizon. Do a google search.

          1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

            Done, found exactly nothing. It would be ok for short range local delivery trucks, but certainly not for long rage full size trucks that need to be on the road maximum amount of time, as time is money for them.

            1. Speculawyer says:

              Large Trucks are better handled with plug-in hybrid technology, natural gas, or just sticking with gas/diesel for now.

              Large trucks on pure EV are hard to do right now but trying to use H2 fuel cells doesn’t really solve anything but the emissions.

              1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

                “just emissions” – yes, and what exactly more are you trying to solve? Make them cheaper? Sorry, I don’t care about making them cheaper.
                Yes, running trucks on diesel (should I say “clean diesel”?) is cheaper right now. Nobody is trying to dispute it. Hydrogen for transportation is long term project and long range trucks will be the last to switch as they are cost sensitive. Still, it is possible when dispensed hydrogen price will reach certain level. It is not possible with batteries until some fundamental breakthrough.

                1. Speculawyer says:

                  Actually, they don’t even solve emissions since the H2 is generally made by steam-reforming natural gas and venting the CO2 into the atmosphere. So they fail on emissions.

                  But I would also like to solve:
                  -lower fuel cost
                  -reduced oil imports (which it does solve I guess)
                  -Being able to generate my own fuel (fail)
                  -Reduced maintenance/repairs.

          2. Fool Cells says:

            EV heavy duty trucks are available today

        3. Fool Cells says:

          A Hydrogen shill complaining about the “low” energy density of batteries. ROFL

  4. jelloslug says:

    When the Mirai came out in September Toyota promised that there would be twenty new stations by the end of ’15 and there are still the same 4 that were there in September. Of those four one of them is completely off line and another is only at half capacity. This is the real problem.

    1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

      It is not Toyota job to build these stations but California government. Funds are being allocated and it is work in progress:
      http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-600-2015-016/CEC-600-2015-016.pdf
      As with all real life plans, delays happen, but it doesn’t mean that the plans will not be implemented. Tesla is also always constantly late on their supercharger network expansion plans and on new model release. You can’t predict how much time exactly everything will take.

      1. Ash09 says:

        Tesla also isn’t relying on taxpayers to foot the bill to build their superchargers either.

        1. Three Electrics says:

          You’re kidding, right? Tesla’s total government aid totals roughly five billion dollars.

          1. jelloslug says:

            I’m sure you can back that up.

            1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

              DOE loan at nominal interest rate while they should have been borrowing at very high venture capital interest rates.
              3-7 CARB credits per car that may cost several thousands each.
              $7500 buyer tax credit per car, plus state tax incentives. Up to 200,000 cars, or $1,500,000,000.
              Various state tax discounts.

              It would be all fine if they had done something beneficial to the society except hype. But we only got proprietary charging network that is no benefit to the society as the whole, only to their premium car buyers, and just fragments charging infrastructure. And taxpayer subsidized luxury cars with mass-market cars not even in the sight. When/if they will really get to the mass market, GM, Nissan and others will far ahead. Waste of taxpayer money.

              1. jelloslug says:

                Boy, that is some “fuzzy math” you have there.
                Lots of “should have” and “might cost”. To top that off you include individual tax credits that are other peoples money to begin with, not the government.

                1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

                  Everybody buying a gas car or not buying anything at all would pay that $7500 “individual” tax part to government. You are making excuses that don’t fly. I’m not going to do exact math as I don’t see the point to do it. Broad picture is clear anyway – they would not be able to go above Roadster niche level without billions of taxpayer money.

                  1. jelloslug says:

                    Nope, that’s an individual’s tax burden that gets changed, not funds that have already been collected and then redistributed. If you think a persons money is automatically the property of the government until they can justify why it’s not you have bigger issues than backing the wrong fuel source.

              2. Stephen says:

                No benefit to society? I appreciate tens of thousands less vehicles not consuming oil and not spewing emissions. And I also appreciate less noise pollution.

              3. Kumar says:

                No benefit to society? Okay, I can’t take you even 1/4 of a % seriously anymore.

              4. Phr3d says:

                @zzz, ahem..

                “DOE loan at nominal interest rate while they should have been borrowing at very high venture capital interest rates.
                3-7 CARB credits per car that may cost several thousands each.
                $7500 buyer tax credit per car, plus state tax incentives. Up to 200,000 cars, or $1,500,000,000.
                Various state tax discounts.”

                I missed the memo stating that FCV are Not eligible for these same items? I see H2 as an important part of a clean future, but can’t see FOX-picking EV subsidies as a remotely positive method.
                All clean-V draw from the same bowl of cherries, and without that bowl we would have no EV or FCV. MHO

          2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Three Oil Companies Three Electrics said:

            “Tesla’s total government aid totals roughly five billion dollars.”

            Presumably you’re mostly talking about the DOE loan, which Tesla fully paid back, with interest, and paid it back early?

            Gee whiz, what a terrible way to spend taxpayer money. Doesn’t Tesla realize that the government is supposed to lose money when making loans to automobile manufacturers? You Big Oil shills really need to put a stop to that! [/sarcasm]

            1. Phr3d says:

              Puthetic sed:

              “Three Oil Companies Three Electrics said:”
              (kindergarten-amazing cross-thru that was funny the first 3000 times not duplicated)

              Phr3d sed
              “I’d like to find your inner child and kick its little ass..”

              sorry, I just LOVE name-calling, I do it alla’ time when I’m not ’round big people.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        “You can’t predict how much time exactly everything will take.”

        We can, however, predict that those promoting the “hydrogen economy” won’t be able to repeal the laws of physics, nor change the chemical and physical properties of hydrogen gas. Therefore, we absolutely can predict that H2 will never be a practical or affordable transportation fuel.

        And no matter how huge a blizzard of text you put up to deny that reality, zzzzzzzzzz, nothing can or will change that.

        1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

          Your laws of physics are from alternate reality. Model S battery is around 1300 pounds, while Mirai fuel cell stack with tank – less than 300 pounds for much longer range and much quicker refueling.
          It is obvious that battery approach doesn’t scale outside limited niche. In my reality you need energy to move objects around, and the heavier the objects, the more energy you need, and more expensive it gets.

          1. Ambulator says:

            You would think that the obvious place to start with fuel cell vehicles would be 18-wheelers. Not only are they the largest vehicles on the road but they travel defined routes, so putting in the infrastructure should be relatively easy.

            Why are they trying to start with passenger vehicles?

          2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            zzzzzzzzzz said:

            “Your laws of physics are from alternate reality. Model S battery is around 1300 pounds, while Mirai fuel cell stack with tank – less than 300 pounds for much longer range and much quicker refueling.”

            Alternate reality… I guess that’s where the Mirai can be refueled in only 3 minutes. In this reality, it’s 10 minutes.

            But the problem with FCEVs isn’t the fuel cell, it’s the hydrogen fuel. You Big Oil shills keep trying to shift the argument to the car, rather than the fuel and the energy required for the fuel. Bait-and-switch; that’s what people do when they don’t have an honest argument.

            “In my reality you need energy to move objects around, and the heavier the objects, the more energy you need, and more expensive it gets.”

            Yeah, actual reality too. And BEVs are 3 to 4 times as energy efficient, on a well-to-wheel basis, as hydrogen powered “fool cell” cars.

            Funny how none of your arguments stand up to actual logic, actual science, or actual facts. It’s almost like they are all based on half-truths and lies.

      3. mustang_sallad says:

        Really? A critique of Tesla’s speed in deploying infrastructure? Did you notice that they installed 500+ stations across the North America, Europe and China in less than 3 years? The fact is that fast charging stations are MUCH cheaper and easier to deploy, and meanwhile, the cars can be charged at home. H2 vehicles are 100% dependent on new infrastructure, and are completely unusable (for long trips or daily driving) unless you have working fueling infrastructure where it needs to be.

        1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

          They are cheaper as long as they are hardly usable. 30-60 minute charging time is too much for road trips. Gas car market share speaks for itself.

          1. jelloslug says:

            That’s as much time as the average FC refueling takes ( if you can refuel it at all). At least with the Tesla you can refuel like 95% of the owners do and just “fill it up” whilst it sit idle.

      4. John says:

        BACK THE TRAIN UP!

        WHY is it California’s job to build a gas station? Do they build the power lines that power EV’s, or the gas stations the power most other cars?

        It SHOULD be the job of BUSINESS to build the stations and figure out how to operate them at a profit.

        I’m not against subsidies to help…but let the free market do its thing. Show me ONE instance of something the government has done efficiently and cheaply.

        1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

          I don’t want to get into some religious libertarian discussion, you may consider it wrong or right, but governments do build infrastructure all the time. Most of the roads and streets in the US are built by public money. Electric utilities may be investor owned, but they are highly regulated monopolies and essentially customers just pay their costs whatever they are.
          It is not necessary for government to build full scale hydrogen network. But it needs to provide a jump start until it scales up a bit and becomes commercially viable. That is assuming particular government wants to stop using air that we breath as dumping ground and avoid associated consequences. This is what governments are for, to do what private capital can’t do.

      5. jelloslug says:

        You can make all the pretty press releases and PDFs you want but the simple fact is that the stations are simply not being built and the ones that are there are not reliable. There are SIX total H2 stations in California and right now only THREE of them are fully functional. Tesla (and it seems now some of the other EV manufacturer) KNOW that infrastructure is the key to being able to market long range EVs and if you are not actively making that happen it will never happen on it’s own.

        1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

          Tell me more about the holly Tesla order when they will start building 3 minute 0-100% stations and their stations will be available to everybody, not just $100k a-pop car buyers. Right now you can’t even drive cross country without going circles to reach these stations, take San Antonio – Tucson route for example. They certainly have head-start in their infrastructure buildup, but it just the beginning of the race to replace 99% of gas cars on the road and Tesla approach looks like dead-end, having hard time to breach out of 1%, or 5%, or 10% at most niche. It doesn’t scale.

          1. jelloslug says:

            Vs the non-existent H2 stations? You can hardly even get outside of LA with an H2 car. You can buy a CPO Tesla for less than the cost of a Mirai AND take it anywhere in the county. Combine that with the upcoming 200 mile + BEVs that are hitting the market and only the most faithful H2 supporter will be buying them.

            1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

              You can buy just used gas car for $5000 and it will not have $600/year maintenance fee like Model S. Yes, battery cars are fine and I have nothing against them. And they are ahead of fuel cells and Bolt is very promising. Still I don’t see how battery cars are going to scale above 5-15% of market share and do everything what fuel cells can do. Why are you battery car fans insist reading and commenting fuel cell car articles if you really think they are DOA?

              1. jelloslug says:

                Why are you even on an EV site?

          2. Speculawyer says:

            Show me an H2 station that can give a 0 to 100% fill up in 3 minutes. They are not that fast.

      6. ffbj says:

        Not another proponent of hydrogen..zzzzz

      7. Kumar says:

        Now you are just sounding sour and salty. EVs are winning, and still ridiculous amounts of gov money follow FCV projects. People say “don’t pick a winner” but when a clear winner emerges, gov should not be doubling down on a loser either.

      8. Fool Cells says:

        It is not California’s responsibility. Why must taxpayers foot the bill for this boondoggle? If hydrogen is the future, sounds like a great investment opportunity. Which is why so many investors are lining up to build refueling stations…

  5. James says:

    Where does the electricity come from ?
    It takes up to 3 times the energy to get the same amout of moving energy like an electric car ! Needless to say this is ridiculous regarding we have not enought green electricity.
    http://tff-forum.de/download/file.php?id=16099

    1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

      It is very dumb to assume electrolysis site would use the same residential rate electricity that you need to use for battery charging. Electrolysis demand is flexible as you can store hydrogen and oxygen at low cost for long time, and it may get several times lower off-peak rates, or use its own off-grid wind/solar generators.

  6. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    Gosh, so many thinks one could say about this. Just a few:

    1. In the category of Greenwashing, we have a new winner!

    2. The car for people who really, really hate Planet Earth.

    3. A car which only a Big Oil promoter could love.

    4. For those of you who think it’s not good enough that the Mirai is less efficient than the average gasmobile, and produces more well-to-wheel pollution; for those who like to drive a small truck which seats seven, using it as a single-passenger vehicle to drive to work and back… we now offer a car which combines the worst of both worlds!

    4. A picture is worth 1000 words…

    1. Three Electrics says:

      Sigh. More hate from EV bigots, spouting claims which are factually incorrect. But we’ve been here before, haven’t we? You just can’t teach and old dog new tricks.

      1. jelloslug says:

        Correct the claims rather than complaining.

        1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

          It is pointless to argue with religious fanatics that choose to reject scientific approach. They were corrected many times before, and all the studies are available for free online.

          1. jelloslug says:

            That’s what I though….

  7. Rex says:

    Ka sa ra sa ra, The future is not for us to see. What ever will be will be.

    1. Ambulator says:

      Not “Ka sa ra sa ra”, but depending on what language you think it is:

      Spanish: Que será será
      French: Que sera, sera
      Italian: Che sarà, sarà

  8. Get Real says:

    Yes, the (probably paid) shills for Fool Cells will continue to push their taxpayer funded greenwashing for the Koch Heads and their fossil fuel buddies as well as Coyota,etc.

    But facts are facts and as EV tech continues to progress and is synergestic with renewable electricity generation.

    Whereas Fool Cell technology cannot scale and the inefficiencies and therefore costs are so great because of physics it will forever be a costly solution that was beaten from the beginning by batteries for transportation.

    1. h2 says:

      Typical post from battery car zealot living on conspiracy theories, hating whole world for not going his impossible way, and trolling fuel cell car comments.

      1. Ambulator says:

        This is an EV site. You have to expect some pushback.

      2. Fool Cells says:

        If hydrogen is the future, where is all the private investment? Here is the chance of a lifetime to get in on the ground floor.

      3. Get Real says:

        LMFAO when after I returned to my home equipped with solar panels and plugged in my EV to recharge and read “h2” comment.

        Being that battery EVs are the ONLY cars you can both make your own energy for and refuel at home I couldn’t help but laugh at the hydrogen schill h2’s ridiculous troll comment that lamely tries to “flip the script” here on an EV SITE!

        In any case, if the Koch heads or Exxon or any fossil fool companies want to pay for the building of hydrogen stations and try and sell their hydrogen that way I’m fine with them pissing their money down that rat-hole instead of buying the Republican Party.

        Until that time happens (and it will never happen because it is such a losing economic proposition), I as a taxpayer do not want to have to fund these fossil fool companies’ boondoggle.

  9. Speculawyer says:

    “Battery and fuel cell will co-exist, but fuel cell is the best powertrain for larger vehicles.“

    Maybe in the distant future. But for now, I really don’t see how a fuel cell powertrain can beat a plug-in hybrid powertrain in a larger vehicle.

  10. JimGord says:

    Realistic view of Hydrogen and why it is DOA

  11. shawn marshall says:

    Why would any rational person be opposed to manufacturers development of fuel cell technology? Especially for resource poor Japan it must seem very attractive since hydrogen from seawater by off peak nuclear generation is almost free. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because the US cut off their oil. It is a way to put nuclear power in your cars. Who cares if they give it a go?

    1. Ambulator says:

      First off, every dollar wasted on something as useless as fuel cell cars diminishes us all. There is always some waste in research, but I’m never happy to see us throw money away, even in Japan.

      Beyond that, getting hydrogen from methane is relatively cheap, and it represents an almost irresistible attraction to energy providers. You even see this in California, where they put in a pointless requirement of 33% renewable hydrogen. That hydrogen is coming from organic waste, of which there is a limited supply. It should be reserved for commercial airlines or military jets or some other essential use.

    2. Speculawyer says:

      Hey, manufacturers can develop it all they want. I just don’t want to buy it or have my tax dollars spent on it.

      Off peak nuclear generation in Japan? LOL. Did you just return to Earth from another planet? Pretty much everyone of Japan’s nuclear plants is offline except 1 or 2. Fukushima, look it up.

      1. Speculawyer says:

        Per Wiki, there is just 1 operating nuclear plant in Japan:

        On August 11, 2015, the Sendai Nuclear Power Plant was brought back online.[4] As of November 2015 it is the only nuclear power plant operating in Japan.

  12. jelloslug says:

    Well, I guess you can stick a fork in it. Toyota just put a stop sell on the Mirai because there are no places to fuel cars.

  13. Get Real says:

    LOL, I guess the H2 shills are trying to figure out a way to explain this problem away:

    http://insideevs.com/toyota-to-selected-dealers-stop-delivering-mirai-there-is-no-where-to-refuel/

    1. jelloslug says:

      The fuel of tomorrow, because if you get in line now for a tank of H2 that’s when you will get to fill it up.