Hydrogen Fuel Cell Hyundai ix35 Featured In Fully Charged (Video)

JUL 8 2015 BY MARK KANE 54

Hyundai Tucson ix35

Hyundai Tucson ix35

About two months ago Hyundai introduced its ix35 Hydrogen Fuel Cell in UK at £67,985 (over $100,000) before any incentives.

The car was recently featured in Fully Charged and Robert Llewellyn tried to discus hydrogen production – from natural gas or electric energy through electrolysis. This is interesting because there is an idea to use renewable sources, which could supply energy when production exceeds demand from the grid and in normal operations those sources are turned off anyway.

Well, sure smart energy management will help, although we could still schedule EV charging or use energy storage to limit idle time of renewables.

According to the video, today about 95% of hydrogen in the UK comes from the fossil fuel industry.

“A test drive in the hydrogen fuel cell Hyundai ix35. Easy to drive, easy to re-fuel, the only thing coming out of the tiny tailpipe is water. So, where does hydrogen come from?”

Categories: Hyundai, Videos


Leave a Reply

54 Comments on "Hydrogen Fuel Cell Hyundai ix35 Featured In Fully Charged (Video)"

newest oldest most voted
Three Electrics
It’s interesting to observe the parallels between climate change deniers and fuel-cell haters. In both cases, special interest groups injected memes into the minds of the weak minded, primarily to poison and frame the terms of a public policy debate. In the former case, this group is a shadow lobby of big oil interests; in the latter case, it’s Elon Musk and cronies (Clean Technica). The argument goes like this: hydrogen primarily comes from dirty sources, ergo. it’s not viable. Furthermore, clean hydrogen costs more than dirty hydrogen. To the critical thinker, however, these arguments ring false. 80% of the U.S. electricity grid is non-renewable, and in many areas of the country driving an EV is dirtier than FCEV, hybrid and even an ICE cars. And yet we never year about how dirty BEVs are. Clean electricity also costs more than dirty electricity (i.e. coal). In fact, solar is *still* not competitive with other forms of electricity generation in almost all areas of the country when the energy is not used from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Most BEVs do not charge in this period. If solar or wind needs to be stored (as it eventually will), the cost goes… Read more »

Solar energy is now 5 cent per kWh across the 10 US Southern States, and Wind energy is 3.

Old arguments are now invalid.


In his defense, he said “…when the energy is not used from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m…”. Your numbers assume that the energy is used immediately as it is produced. If that is not the case, one has to consider storage.

Hydrogen is an interesting solution to the storage problem, but not the only one. Combine the coming wave of affordable ~50kWh BEVs with a more ubiquitous charging network (essentially a plug anywhere you park for 1 hour or more), add a dash of grid-controlled “demand response” and viola. You can now dump excess renewables into cars waiting for (but not in immediate need of) a charge. In turn, you can turn off those same cars when there isn’t enough renewable power on the grid.

Mark Hovis

To add to Mike777’s point, the percentage of EVs that are powered, or offset by solar is a large number. California numbers show 1-in-3. EVs are still a small percentage of autos on the road though their choice of renewable energy sourcing is substantial. FOr Three Electrics to state how small solar usage is and not equate the percentages to EVs lacks critical thinking.

Powering an EV from the grid is going to face environmental issues for awhile. That is why an increasing number of us choose solar. You don’t have control of where your hydrogen comes from. Though it is very noble that California is mandating 30% from waste treatment methane, etc., this is similar to converting coal electricity to fracked gas powered electricity. It still comes up short environmentally.

I just don’t see the Koch brothers choosing the high ground. That is the problem. Meanwhile, I don’t think it is all far fetched that 40% of EV drivers will be producing/offsetting their energy usage via solar in the same decade stated by Three Electrics.

Is the 33% number of EV owners who offset with solar a sustainable number or is it a unsustainable reflection that most early EV adopters are wealthy, environmentally conscious, and live in detached single family houses. We’re talking about 33% of less than 0.5% of the people who purchased new vehicles. I don’t know think you can expect/extrapolate the same solar adoption rate for Joe six-pack as you would for a early adopter. Many of the people who didn’t purchase an ICE over an EV live in apartments and condos and can’t install solar or have much lower incomes/assets or simply neither care about the environment nor believe in climate change. M Hovis said: “You don’t have control of where your hydrogen comes from. Though it is very noble that California is mandating 30% from waste treatment methane, etc., this is similar to converting coal electricity to fracked gas powered electricity. It still comes up short environmentally.” No, H2 from bio methane is practically carbon neutral as opposed to using fracked fossil fuel natural gas. These is no comparison between the two with regards to CO2 emissions. Actually you can have control of where your H2 comes from. Six of… Read more »
Mark Hovis

Actually I think it will be Joe Sixpack that leads the way. Lowes and Home Depot make a fortune off of DIY. I spend a fair amount of time teaching Joe Sixpack how to purchase DIY systems for $2/watt. In NC, Joe can purchase a 6 kWh system for under $12,000. http://www.wholesalesolar.com/grid-tie-packages After 30% fed credit and 35% NC credit, Joe spent about $5,500 for a system that will produce $1000 annually at the 12 cents/kWh rate. Another way to look at it is about $1,800 for 70% of the fuel needed to power an EV for 25 years. As credits disappear, pricing will still continue to fall on the hardware to keep 25 years worth of fuel for Joe Sixpack under $3000. Yes, I think that is more than sustainable. Do not underestimate the fiscal spirit of Joe Sixpack.


“…in many areas of the country driving an EV is dirtier than FCEV, hybrid and even an ICE cars. And yet we never year about how dirty BEVs are.” [sic]

Both of these points are arguably false. There have been many studies to compare how clean BEVs really are, well-to-wheels. Some say cleaner than the best Hybrid, others say dirtier than the average ICEV. All studies highlight that it depends on where one lives and gets electricity. The debate rages on, so if you “never hear about how dirty BEVs are” then you aren’t listening.

That aside, I do agree with the gist of your post. But hydrogen has some hurdles. Much bigger ones than BEVs have. Infrastructure and cost to name two. Its major advantage over a battery seems to be scale. To increase the storage capacity of a FCEV, add more tanks. To do the same with a BEV, add more batteries. The batteries to power something like a tractor trailer would be very expensive and would require enormous amounts of current to recharge at a reasonable rate.


The studies that talk about how “dirty” EVs are never take in consideration the pollution created by refining gasoline.


Nor do they consider the simple and valuable fact that ICE’s deposit emissions ON THE ROADS where pedestrians and people who live by the road have to breathe it in, whereas EV’s displace the emissions to the power plants; typically located AWAY from public sectors.



I don’t hate fuel cells, they just don’t make sense as a power source in a passenger vehicle.


THIS. They do not make any sense.


“The argument goes like this: hydrogen primarily comes from dirty sources, ergo. it’s not viable. Furthermore, clean hydrogen costs more than dirty hydrogen.”

The argument goes more like this:
Hydrogen that comes primarily from dirty sources costs $8 per gge. Clean hydrogen costs $15 per gge. The cars average about 60mpge. $0.13 per mile for dirty hydrogen, $0.25 per mile for clean hydrogen.

Average electricity costs $4 per gge (33.7kWh, $0.12 per kWh). Cars average about 100mpge. $0.04 per mile for average electricity.
Cleaner electricity (CA grid), average $0.15 per kWh, $5 per gge: $0.05 per mile.

Hybrid: $3 per gallon, 50mpg $0.06 per mile.


And the comparison for gCO2e/mi based on ANL GREET model (lower is better, zip 66044 is a place with 74% coal generation; assuming 60.3mpge for hydrogen):
BEV (CA) 133
HEV 230
BEV (US) 232
FCV (Central SMR) 256
FCV (Distributed SMR) 265
PHEV (US) 280
BEV (zip 66044) 297
PHEV (zip 66044) 322
ICE 448
FCV (Distributed Electrolysis) 574

So the numbers show that EVs cost less than hybrids to run even when using much cleaner sources. FCVs cost much more to run no matter what source you use (clean or otherwise). That’s why people say it’s not viable.


Very good analysis. For an apples to apples comparison, I’d like to point out that the hybrid cost per mile includes a hefty federal gas/road tax and a smaller state gas/road tax, while the EV and FCV costs per mile don’t include either one. To recoup these lost highway-funding taxes, states are starting to impose gas/road taxes as a set amount that is part of the annual registration fee or are charging a tax based on annual mileage driven. It’s also only a matter of time before the federal government starts trying to recoup gas/road taxes from EV drivers.

The 2016 Prius is expected to get a 55 mpg rating which would bring its cost per mile with $3 per gallon gasoline down to $0.0545 per mile. Likewise, the 67mpge Mirai would have a slightly lower cost per mile than a 60mpge FCV.

The CO2 numbers for the three different H2 pathways for FCVs don’t take into account California’s requirement that transportation H2 must be sourced from 33% renewables, which would lead corresponding reduction in gCO2e/mi.

philip d
“The argument goes like this: hydrogen primarily comes from dirty sources, ergo. it’s not viable. Furthermore, clean hydrogen costs more than dirty hydrogen.” To the critical thinker the argument actually goes like this: Even if hydrogen is produced from 100% renewable sources the energy used to make that one kg of hydrogen even in-situ to tank would be better served and more efficient by going directly into a battery for a BEV. It’s easy to make hydrogen look attractive when the comparison to EVs is apples to oranges due to confusion of which fossil fuels are used when in what equation. But when you look at a simple apples to apples comparison like wind or solar directly producing hydrogen or directly producing electricity for a BEV it becomes apparent that hydrogen production can never be as efficient. So the point is humanity needs to look at the end game of which solution will get the most miles for the cleanest energy input for our entire transportation fleet far into the future. 50-75 years from now when fossil fuels are no longer viable we will have made our decision on which drivetrain has replaced the ICE and there will be no… Read more »

“To the critical thinker the argument actually goes like this: Even if hydrogen is produced from 100% renewable sources the energy used to make that one kg of hydrogen even in-situ to tank would be better served and more efficient by going directly into a battery for a BEV.”

To anyone who engages in real critical thinking, that would be the end of the argument.

Sadly, it won’t be.

Mister G

3 electrics, there are no parallels between climate change deniers and fuel cell haters, climate change deniers reject science and fuel cell haters embrace science to form their positions.

Tony Williams

Which makes an interesting observation. Climate change deniers just may be think like hydrogen fuel cell advocates.

The facts don’t matter… just the imagined outcome.


I am critical of calling your own thinking critical thinking. Also saying that those who do not agree with you are weak-minded is simply poisoning the well. Aside from that you are so wrong it is difficult to even to begin to conjecture how to refute the obvious shortcomings in your position.

Three Electrics said: “It’s interesting to observe the parallels between climate change deniers and fuel-cell haters. In both cases, special interest groups injected memes into the minds of the weak minded, primarily to poison and frame the terms of a public policy debate.” I think you had a really bad typo there; you wrote “fuel-cell haters” but you meant “fuel-cell promoters”. :/ “In the former case, this group is a shadow lobby of big oil interests; in the latter case, it’s Elon Musk and cronies (Clean Technica).” Gosh, that Musk guy must be a real Svengali! Amazing how he’s convinced the scientists who post to Phys.org, and the economists and investment advisors at Energy and Capital.com, to promote his agenda. :/ http://phys.org/news/2006-12-hydrogen-economy-doesnt.html http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/hydrogen-economy-fuel+cell/480 And these guys, too: http://www.alternet.org/story/15239/a_hydrogen_economy_is_a_bad_idea http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/05/3467115/tesla-toyota-hydrogen-cars-batteries/ I guess Elon Musk has also invented a time machine, so he could go back in time and coerce the Alternet guys to post their article debunking the claims for hydrogen fuel back in 2003, the Phys.org scientists to post theirs in 2006, and those Energy and Capital.com writers in 2007. 😀 “The argument goes like this: hydrogen primarily comes from dirty sources, ergo. it’s not viable. Furthermore, clean hydrogen costs… Read more »
Jim Gord

PHEVs beat hydrogen as a cleaner, less expensive alternative for longer range needs. They were not even mentioned.
Hydrogen has to many insurmountable problems (complexity, cost, fossil fuel source, inefficiency, safety).
Hydrogen is DOA as a transportation fuel. We are not fuel cell haters, we are just thinking rationally. Hydrogen totally failed as a bus fuel (Ballard/BC Transit Fuel cell buses). (The relatively new hydrogen buses are available for scrap value). Toyota is facing a multi-billion dollar write down.

Tony Williams

“clean hydrogen”…

Reminds me of “clean coal”.

Hydrogen’s Failure is well documented: Hydrogen Hydrogen stations make excellent terrorist targets. 0.1 Hydrogen stations, cost per station: $1 Million. Difficult to make hydrogen and store it. Hydrogen isn’t a source of energy, you can’t mine it, you can convert something else to hydrogen, like methane, but then you lose energy in the process. Hydrogen from water( in a global drought? ), is extremely inefficient. Hydrogen from methane gives you No Help with global warming, it actually makes things worse. As methane wells typically leak like sieves. Hydrogen must be supercooled and compressed to store sufficient energy, which requires lots of energy. Burning it as a fuel is less than 50% efficient. The energy to do all this could be used to directly run an EV from a battery, and get you Twice as far. Hydrogen likes to leak. Hydrogen has a general problem of metal embrittlement, so you need special tanks. Hydrogen leaks as an invisible gas. Hydrogen is extremely flammable with an invisible flame. Right now hydrogen is a loser vs. current batteries, not to speak of the battery chemistry in the coming solid state batteries. Hydrogen refueling vs. solar. Solar: You plug in at your home, Time… Read more »
Jim Gord



Wouldn’t the electric grid also made a better terrorist target?

David Murray

The only thing I really learned from this video is that Brittish guys pronounce Hyundai very different from Americans..

David Stone

I found it strange that he said the feuling situation for hydrogen is the same as it was for bevs years ago.
It was not.

True, if you only mean rapid public chargers, but even fifty years ago there were thousands, if not millions of places to charge.
They were slow, but they were there.


This fact cannot be overstated. This is one of the BEV’s biggest advantages. Not just over FCEVs, but over ICEVs as well.


Even with millions of places to charge (electric outlets), if an BEV runs out of juice on the road then 99.9% of the time you’ll call a tow truck just like if a FCV ran out of H2. With an ICE or PHEV, you might be able to walk to a gas station to buy a gas can and some gas to get you going again.

Mark Hovis

Not if it is a PHEV/EREV which makes up 50% of our current PEV fleet. A solar powered/offset Volt is still environmentally better than 90% of the hydrogen choices, better range, fuels faster, and better performance. http://insideevs.com/2016-chevy-volt-vs-toyota-mirai/
As stated above, you can make this choice with electricity, you don’t get the option with hydrogen.


What does that have to do with the number of outlets and the need for a tow if you run out of juice in a BEV? The fact that there are a million electrical outlets doesn’t matter if my EVSE can’t reach one when I run out of charge, I’d need to call a tow truck.

There might be a million outlets, but let’s face it, they are not a place to charge if you run out of charge in your BEV and your EVSE can’t reach the electric outlet, or you don’t have access to the electric outlet because it’s located in someone’s home.

I addressed PHEVs & EREVs by saying they can be filled up if within walking distance to a gas station when you run out of charge and gas.

Mark Hovis

Hey sven, my response was to reiterate your point that PHEV/EREVs do not suffer the limitation.

The second point probably belongs outside of this thread, but was tying back into the article’s points of the pros and cons of FCVs in general. The US may be the only country in the end that uses natural gas as a transition fuel on the road to renewables.

I agree with your mantra of ZEVs, though I am a bit tougher on all fossil fuels including those used to make electricity for the grid. I like Llewellyn’s point of excess wind energy. I also like California’s mandated use of methane. I don’t like the excessive methane leaks from fracking.

When I built my solar array, I left open rack positions to power my Volt. I bought extra panels and my Volt within weeks of each other.

I think the the single largest piece of legislation that will advance solar usage will be that of removing the barriers for micro grids for urban sprawl. Breaking this barrier along with the $150/kWh battery, IMO is the turning point

Keep-up comin sven, your input is both passionate and stimulating.


Oops, OK. Sorry for the mixup. 🙂

One of my biggest pet peeves with the oil/gas industry is that our government/EPA allows fracked oil wells (ie North Dakota) to flare natural gas instead of capturing it and/or using it to run a generator to power the pump jacks and other equipment at the well site. The oil companies are literally wasting the natural gas, burning it only to release less harmful emmissions, CO2 and NOx instead of the much more potent greenhouse gas methane. The North Dakota gas flares equal the emissions of an extra million cars on the road. At night, you can even see the flared natural gas from space.




Yes, flaring is certainly a huge strike against Fuel Cell vehicles, which get such a huge proportion of their energy from Natural Gas. Even with 33% of the energy required to come from green sources in 1 of the 50 states.


Actually, since they are fracking for oil in North Dakota it doesn’t have anything to do with hydrogen FCVs. The flared natural gas that comes up with the crude oil is an unwanted byproduct of the crude oil that will make gasoline and diesel for ICE cars, including PHEVs and EREVs. But I think I get the point that you’re trying to make. 😀

I thought the other CARB states were following the California ARB standard with regards to the 33.3% renewable hydrogen requirement. If not, then that is not a good thing.

I am sure you’ll be glad to know that there are currently 8 stations under construction that will be providing only 100% renewable hydrogen.

100% renewable stations – page46


I don’t think it makes sense to pick a car based on an edge case such as running out of fuel. Instead we should look at the majority case of simply needing a location to fuel (and being able to drive your car to it).

Then again, it’s similar to the thinking that “hey, I may want to haul a boat 1000 miles with my wife, two kids, a friend for each kid, and luggage for a week! I cannot survive with a vehicle that can do any less!”


I’m not trying to pick a car. The original comment suggested that there are “millions of places” to charge because the are millions of outlets. I’m just saying millions of outlet does not mean million of places to charge. Almost all of these outlets are inaccessible to EV drivers who don’t own the property where these outlets are located.

Perhaps I could have worded it better.


“I don’t think it makes sense to pick a car based on an edge case such as running out of fuel.”

I don’t either. I mean, seriously, who walks to a gas station to fill a can these days? People just call AAA.

How likely is it that someone will run their PEV battery pack flat? So far as I know, every single PEV displays multiple warnings if you’re running low on “juice”, so you either have to be very determined or very clueless to run the battery down so far the car dies. If you carry an extension cord and an EVSE in your car, then you have the potential of recharging literally any place that has an outdoor outlet.

Plus, we’ve already seen multiple articles about AAA adding the ability to give a quick-charge boost to an EV. Of course, it will take some time until those are commonplace, but that’s just another way of saying that PEVs are still in the “early adopter” stage of the tech.

philip d

I’ve never run out of gas in my life. There’s no reason to.

Being able to walk with a can to get fuel because you were too lazy to pay attention to your fuel gauge is not an actual feature for a vehicle. It’s no feature at all rather it is a flaw in the operator of the vehicle.

I wouldn’t often take the time and trouble to do this, but Robert Llewellyn has earned a large amount ofrespect from me, from his long-running “Fully Charged” video series which promotes use of EVs. Therefore, I think this video deserves detailed commentary. So without further ado: 2:10 “They’ve made about a thousand of them [FCEVs] so far” Hyundai has sold only 70 in the first 12 months of sales. I think Robert is getting his quotes mixed up. I think one FCEV maker said they plan on producing about 1000 of them total, over the next few years. 2:40 “When I first got an electric car, there was one rapid charger in the country. One. There was nowhere to charge your car…” Very far from the truth indeed! Unlike the “fool cell” car, you could — and can — charge your PEV at home, or in fact anywhere you can find a plug within extension cord reach of the car. 3:02 “But it’s still limited if you can’t buy any hydrogen… I wanna be able to get into the car and drive to Scotland. Well, you couldn’t do that in this yet. But — five years’ time, you probably will… Read more »

Lensman said: The process of generating, compressing, sorting, moving, storing, re-compressing, and dispensing hydrogen is so massively wasteful, and itself generates so much pollution and CO2, that environmentally speaking, it’s better to drive an average gasmobile. If it’s a high-MPG gasmobile, all the better.”

How do you reconcile the above statement with the the well-to-wheels CO2 emissions computed by the world renowned scientists at the Argonne Nation Labs in their GREET 1 2014 analysis. They computed the following CO2 emissions in grams per mile:

Conventional ICE vehicle: 420
Hybrid electric vehicle: 310
Central natural gas – steam methane reformed: 250
Central biomass methane – steam methane reformed: 90 29.97

Since 33.3% of transportation hydrogen in California must be from renewable sources, it will have CO2 emissions of 197 (90 x 33.3% + 250 x 66.7%).

comment image


Oops. The figure for “Central biomass methane – steam methane reformed” should read 90. Disregard the 29.97.

Chris O

Your numbers are off, Toyota Prius is actually 179 grams per mile, CO2 emissions of similar powered HFCVs were clocked at 356gr/mile by DOE NREL long term study on HFCVs based on on site steam reforming of NG.


So am I.
Too much generalization is too much ignorance.


I’m going to stop trashing FCV’s and the hydrogen highway. It’s starting to feel like picking on the developmentally-disabled. They can’t help their situation.

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 said:

“If only the world weren’t governed by the unfair and cruel laws of thermodynamics and economics, the hydrogen economy could rule the world.”

😀 😀 😀

That deserves to go into my quote file!


Ah! The beginning of the downfall of every green car website. The invasion of the Fuel Cell Trolls.

I’m technologically neutral, and will happily use whichever fossil-fuel free (or leading that way) vehicle technology which is affordable and provides me with the capability I need. At the moment, neither BEVs or FCEVs do so, but in my particular situation, FCEVs are closer. Like most of the world’s urban population, I don’t live in a detached, single family home with a dedicated parking space and the ability to charge there. So, the convenience of at-home charging is irrelevant to me. In fact, at the moment and for decades to come, having to rely on at-home or workplace charging would seriously restrict my choices for both where I work and live. Sure, at some point in the future that may no longer be an issue, but it is now (and I live in the S.F. Bay Area, which is far ahead of most parts of the U.S. let alone the world in charging infrastructure). Dedicated, fast central refueling works for me and virtually all other drivers, and has done so for over 100 years, so a switch to H2/FCEVs would present minimal disruption and provide me with the same flexibility I have now. In addition, I’m a single-car household, so… Read more »

Oh, re H2 Co2 eq GHGs from California, see http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2014/10/How-Clean-Are-Hydrogen-Fuel-Cells-Fact-Sheet.pdf

If you look at the footnotes at the end of that document, it’s clear that the author(s) used unrealistic assumptions regarding well-to-wheel CO2 / GHG emissions from FCEVs. Significantly, they left out multiple energy-wasting steps in the supply chain between steam reformation of methane and retail dispensing of hydrogen fuel.

It’s disappointing to see such an overly optimistic analysis from the Union of Concerned Scientists; I thought their standards were better than that.

A more realistic analysis can be found here:


Lensman, that is not a realistic analysis because it is obviously wrong. The last time you posted that link I replied, but you probably didn’t see it so I will post it again here: http://insideevs.com/gas-stations-electric-charging-frackogen/#comment-693410 Lensman said: “Many details and hard data on back-end losses can be found in these articles: . . . http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/hydrogen-economy-fuel+cell/480 Pay particular attention to that last linked article. It says that only 30% of the energy is lost in the process of electrolysis, yet 80% is lost overall. No matter how much more efficient steam reformation is than electrolysis, it can’t possibly raise the overall efficiency that much. Either your ‘gold standard’ is wildly off, or else the Energy & Capital analysis is.” Lensman, you’re comparing a recent peer reviewed well-to-wheels CO2 analysis [GREET 1 2014] by the most preeminent scientists in the field of energy at the world renowned Argonne National Labs with a decade old back-of-the envelope calculation of some dude who posted an article on a financial investment website and who didn’t list any of his scientific or engineering credentials, because he apparently doesn’t have any? Really? His calculations are crap and OBVIOUSLY WRONG. He claims that 80% of energy is lost… Read more »
There were two recent major hydrogen breakthroughs that should lower the cost of making hydrogen via electrolysis, but take them with a grain of salt as you would any news of battery breakthroughs. In the first breakthrough, droplets of water are “zapped” with radio waves, with a frequency that can “shake up” the hydrogen-oxygen bond sufficiently to separate the two gases. If saltwater is used, the salt just drops out of the water, which evaporates into the two gases. I guess the sea salt can then be sold as a substitute for winter rock salt. No hard numbers are given on how much energy required for the process to work, but the CEO said: “We’ve developed the most efficient method for the storage of energy – using just water and radio waves, believe it or not.” http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-hydrogen-energy-tech-feted-by-eu/ The second breakthrough, is a low-cost and low-voltage single-catalyst water splitter that continuously generates hydrogen and oxygen. A cheap nickel-iron oxide catalyst replaces both the platinum and iridium electrodes, and is more durable and slightly more efficient. Also, only one electrolyte with the same alkalinity is required, reducing costs and complexity. In conventional water splitters, the hydrogen and oxygen catalysts often require different… Read more »
Mark Hovis

You are comparing to the wrong EV. Try comparing an FCV to an EREV and go through your arguments again. On range, economy, fuel time, performance, GHG emissions, cost of ownership, and driving freedom, the Chevy Volt is the clear winner over the Toyota Mirai.


Yes, PHEVs would be the closest competition to an FCHV now, although I still wouldn’t have anywhere convenient and inexpensive to charge them; the nearest public chargers are 0.4 miles from me, and $0.49/kWh. Unlike most people I’m willing to make that walk, but not willing to pay that price when gas is cheaper by far.

An HEV or TDI would be the best fit if I needed to replace my current car in the next few years, but I prefer not to do the intermediate step if possible, and would like to go direct to a ZEV where all the fuel can (eventually) be made from renewables.

£67,985 ??? Wow. It’s not even desirable in any other way other than the hydrogen-ness of it. (if that is actually desirable). it’s just a bland, average car. The Tesla Model S starts at £55,000 and that is arguably a more fun car to experience, what do you say? Not to mention the wide availability of places to charge all over the country. Some of which are free! Which appeals to us Brits 🙂 For hydrogen vehicles, they need to install all the dispensers for this stuff, and how much are they to install? Half a million quid? Along with planning permission to dig tanks underneath, HGVs to actually bring the hydrogen to the location on a regular basis, etc.. Compared to £100,000-£300,000 or so for the Superchargers that Tesla is putting in, and these are just powered by wires running from the grid… no “staff” per se. We bnetter watch REALLY CAREFULLY that the auto manufacturers aren’t trying to get taxpayers’ money to install these things. It’s a private endeavour all of their own… they need to pay for it. There better be some serious rebates to turn this car into anything people will want to buy. IMO it… Read more »
Chris O

Love the hydrogen sensors build into this car. Should make it less unnerving to light a cigarette in one of these right? Hydrogen does make for an explosive cocktail even in low concentrations…

What do you do when the alarm goes off, run for the hills and call the bomb squat? What if that happens while it’s parked in your garage?

Wonder if the car comes with some sort of safety training?