Hyundai Teases Next-Gen Fuel Cell Vehicle – Video

2 weeks ago by Chris Bruce 93

The company will also show off its next-gen autonomous driving tech.

Hyundai’s New FCEV

Hyundai will keep busy at CES in 2018 by unveiling its upcoming fuel-cell-powered crossover, next-gen autonomous vehicle tech, and the concept for the brand’s future of automotive cabins. The company will also show off ways to use hydrogen power in the home. So far, Hyundai doesn’t give the new FCEV model a name but promises to unveil the moniker during the show.Compared to the existing fuel-cell-powered Tucson, this new hydrogen-fueled crossover is a significantly better looking vehicle. The sharp nose features a wavy mesh grille and two-tiered lights. In profile, black trim outlines the greenhouse and semi-floating roof design. Spy shots of a mostly undisguised test mule (below) show that the vehicle as a funky rear with strakes on each side of the rear glass, triangular taillights, and metallic trim along the lower bumper.

The new fuel cell reportedly operates at 60 percent efficiency, which is 9 percent better than the powertrain in the Tucson Fuel Cell. The improved tech allegedly pushes its range to 500 miles (804 kilometers). Hyundai will also equip the model with its latest autonomous driving tech, but these systems will likely trickle out to higher volume products later.

The lack of a hydrogen infrastructure is still a problem across the world. The South Korean government has pledged to install over 100 refueling points across the country by 2020.

Hyundai teased details about its next-gen cabin concept in December. The so-called Intelligent Personal Agent uses artificial intelligence to improve the quality of voice commands, including the ability to process multiple requests in a single sentence. The tech can also predict the driver’s needs and tailor information accordingly. A simplified version of this system should debut on 2019 model year vehicles.


93 responses to "Hyundai Teases Next-Gen Fuel Cell Vehicle – Video"

  1. Hauer says:

    The second to ladt paragraph tells it all:
    The state has to provide the H infrastructure. And then younstoll have a very poor efficienc.
    Stop wasting your resources and taxpayers ,oney.

  2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    The next generation of fool cell vehicle should be restricted to where it belongs: In a science fair, and not as a limited production car!

    Promotion of the “hydrogen economy” hoax needs to end, and the sooner the better.

    1. William says:

      The “Hydrogen Economy” comes to you courtesy of the worlds Big 5 0il “CorpoRapeShines”.

      That “Clean DieSell” moniker, didn’t have much shelf life (thanks VW), so this latest “lipstick”, should cover most of the recently exposed “pig”!

      The Hydrogen Highway is coming, and guess who is going to foot the bill?

      I just hope that batteries aren’t going to be the latest road kill, when the oil majors go all in on their latest “Hoax”.

      The Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, and his “drill baby drill” agenda, with his latest Off shore “spill to kill” Platform, should be an interesting battle to engage in.
      I won’t be satisfied to watch this Big Oil power play, pull off a Gulf Deep Water Horizon stunt, here in the Pacific Ocean.

      Many have fought hard since 1984, in keeping these rigs from expanding their numbers off the west coast. We won’t stop until their all but a bad memory.

      1. L'amata says:

        So True!

      2. HVACman says:

        An unfortunate announcement, but there won’t be any “battle”. This is nothing more than Trump honoring an empty campaign promise with an empty new policy that will ultimately prove to be all hot air with little new leasing and no drilling. The biggest problem with the announcement isn’t that this could ruin the environment. The biggest problem is that it perpetuates the myth that the Federal gov. have been sitting on untapped energy resources that could make us energy independent, if only the “wacko environmentalists” would get out of the way.

        Per Wikipedia, almost all the oil resources on Federal lands on the US outer continental shelf are in the Gulf of Mexico (where it already is being developed like crazy) and off Alaska’s North Slope (where Shell had a lease, but after two failures concluded it was too expensive to try to develop it).

        There just ain’t much oil to be found in federal land off either the Atlantic or Pacific coasts. This announcement is like Trump reinstating polar bear hunting at Death Valley National Monument.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          “…off Alaska’s North Slope (where Shell had a lease, but after two failures concluded it was too expensive to try to develop it).”

          Yeah, you said it! regarding the right-wingnut conspiracy theory that the Federal Government is sitting on a lot of oil resources for which it’s blocking development. One startling statistic that I read a few years back is that of all the oil drilling permits issued for Alaska, only 2% of them had been exercised. 98% remained unused.

          The idea that there is gazillons of gallons of oil in Alaska just waiting to be drilled, is a myth. The truth is that while there may be a lot of it there, it’s not cost-effective to extract it.

  3. Get Real says:

    And having the govt fund the wildly inefficient H2 production/distribution system is the goal of the Big Oil rent-seekers.

    Fortunately, Musk and Tesla have blown that fallacy wide open and along with the unchangeable laws of physics.

    This makes H2 into what it really is–a dead end technology and nothing more then an intended diversion away from battery-based storage of electricity in ground transportation.

    Now I’m not saying that H2 couldn’t be used for seasonal/night time power storage or even things like ocean going shipping and if Big Oil wants to fund production/distribution of any type of H2 I’m ok with them doing so as long as we the taxpayers are not on the hook for what is rightfully their attempts to profit from H2.

  4. orinoco says:

    In 2013 the German “clean energy partnership“ (CEP) promised 50 Hydrogen stations until the end of 2016. Result: just 16 and 12 of them in Berlin, Hamburg and Stuttgart.
    Now “H2 mobility” (just a new name) promises 100 hydrogen stations until 2018.
    It’s getting more and more ridiculous.

    Quick&dirty look at the major German online market for cars some time ago: BEVs are still three magnitudes below ICE cars. But FCHEVs are three magnitudes below BEVs! That tells everything.

    1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

      If you look at the map, these stations are all over the Germany, and at least some 40 are already operational.

      Some 2% of plugins charging from 30 EUR/kWh (and going up) electricity are not going anywhere far. Superslow supercharging is pain on Autobahn.

      1. G2 says:

        30€/kwh!!? I call a red flag on that bs.

        1. AnonyMouse says:

          That’s an obvious typo, just like your “kwh” typo. It’s 0.35€/kWh.

          1. Mint says:

            Yes, that’s definitely an obstacle to EV adoption in Germany. That’s around 0.05€ per km in an EV, while efficient diesels run you around 0.06-0.09€ per km.

            But Germany is a bit of an outlier. Charging at night is often one fifth of that price or less. My off peak rate is an eighth of that price.

          2. Mint says:

            Yes, that’s definitely an obstacle to EV adoption in Germany. That’s around 0.05€ per km in an EV, while efficient diesels run you around 0.06-0.09€ per km.

            But Germany is a bit of an outlier. Charging at night is often a fraction of that price or less. My off peak rate is an eighth of that price.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        “…these stations are all over the Germany, and at least some 40 are already operational.”

        Wow, Big Oil shills certainly do like to exaggerate the number of available public H2 filling stations, don’t they?

        Thanks to Orinoco for exposing yet another lie from those promoting the “hydrogen economy” hoax. Looks like in Germany, just as in California, the disparity between what fool cell fanboys claim vs. reality continues to grow every year.

        1. AnonyMouse says:

          “Wow, Big Oil shills certainly do like to exaggerate the number of available public H2 filling stations, don’t they?”

          Zzzzzzz posted a map showing 43 operational hydrogen stations in Germany to support his claim. Zzzzzzz didn’t exaggerate, but you obviously trolled him to spread FUD about hydrogen. Zzzzzzz exposed you as troll, FUDster, and shill.

          1. Bill Howland says:

            AnonyMouse not disagreeing with you, nor ZZZZZZ, yet H2 is possibly more well suited for Europe than the majority of the USA.

            The relatively high cost of H2 dispensories ($3 / Kg, plus Capex, plus any unexpected maintenance), besides the cost of any new hydrogen infrastructure (buried piping, or trucking, etc) means Hydrogen could never ever compete with our cheap gasoline.

            $8-$10/per 64 oz gallon (US) gasoline as in parts of Europe should make H2 far more attractive there, since although your electricity and natural gas costs are somewhat higher than in the states, there is no comparison with our Gasoline prices so if H2 is going to shine anywhere it is in your neck of the woods.

            I live in Poor Buffalo NY. Any ‘electrified’ Hydrogen powered vehicles I will never see, since people around my area could never ever afford the hydrogen let alone the required infrastructure so it will never happen here for the foreseeable future.

  5. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

    Anyone ever research the backers of the hydrogen stations?……….lol

    There are a couple in the works and the operator (and backer, million$ station) is “Shell Oil Products US” which they also go under the guise as “Equilon Enterprises LLC”.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Not hard to research. Just look at the Wikipedia article for the California Fuel Cell Partnership. Among the “full members” are Chevron and Shell Hydrogen.

      Yeah, “Big Oil rent-seekers” is right!

  6. jamesjm says:

    Fuel cell = Pure charlatan snake oil…
    Hydrogen & fossil fuels = Power, money & corruption
    Repub agenda = don’t give away the power to ‘We The People’.

  7. HVACman says:

    From the article:

    “Compared to the existing fuel-cell-powered Tucson, this new hydrogen-fueled crossover is a significantly better looking vehicle. The sharp nose features a wavy mesh grille and two-tiered lights”

    Yeah, it is the appearance that has been holding back global FCV sales. Fixed. Now they’ll sell lot hotcakes!


  8. Martin T. says:

    Oh no … The South Koreans have fallen for the hot air of Hydrogen. Talk about Pi$$ing your money away Hyundai. Money would have been better spent on Solid state batteries which the Japanese will eclipse you with. So come on Hyundai – don’t drop the ball and get your priorities right so you don’t have to licence Japanese solid state batteries in the end.

  9. floydboy says:

    If these oil corporations were using their vast resources(not an insignificant portion of which is taxpayer subsidies) to fund their hydrogen ventures, I’d say best of luck. But their penchant for purchasing politicians to get taxpayers to foot the bill for this nonsense too, is just galling!

  10. JyChevyVolt says:

    Fuel cell is more efficient than electric cars in cold climate areas.

    Electric cars can lose up to 40% in winter months making fuel cell a better choice for people up North.

    1. Mikael says:

      As a person up north I can guarantee you that fuel cells are not a better choice for us.
      A BEV with TMS and efficient heating will do though. Or in other words a car actually made with cold weather conditions in mind.

      1. William says:

        That is good to know that automotive battery engineers have a competent understanding of how to utilize thermal pack management in EV battery pack applications. /s

        Tesla must obviously be among the leaders in battery thermal pre/post conditioning, because they have the global vehicle fleet data from lots of customer vehicles, currently out there proving proof of concept, in diverse real world weather conditions.

      2. zzzzzzzzzz says:

        “As a person up north I can guarantee you that fuel cells are not a better choice for us.
        A BEV with TMS and efficient heating will do though. Or in other words a car actually made with cold weather conditions in mind.”

        Yes you can certainly design much more efficient heating than Tesla. Advanced heat pump as in Prius Prime comes to mind.

        As a person from North however, you should know that even best heat pumps have their limits. Their power goes down when temperature decreases, and you end up turning on regular resistance heat strips. Not a big deal in a house, at least until electric utilities will start charging real time market rates on residential customers. But in a car with current generation Li Ion battery that already may have fraction of capacity at -20 Celsius, it may become question of life or death (literally) in more remote location.

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “Fuel cell is more efficient than electric cars in cold climate areas.”

      This FUD is coming from the guy who falsely accused me of posting FUD on the InsideEVs Forum site!

      Okay, let’s have some Truth here instead of FUD:

      1. PEVs have been shown, in real world conditions, to lose 15-30% of their range in very cold weather, altho part of that is from having to run the cabin heater.

      2. In Popular Mechanics’ “The Great Alt-Fuel Rally” comparison, a BEV used 16.4 GGE (Gallons of Gas Equivalent) in energy for a coast-to-coast trip, whereas the FCEV (fuel cell car) used 73 GGE (source linked below). That means the BEV in that comparison is 445% as energy efficient as the FCEV.

      Even if the BEV lost 30% of its efficiency, it would still be 342% as efficient as the fool cell car!

      3. Is there any evidence that FCEVs don’t also lose significant range in cold weather? If so, I’d like to see it. Certainly they are going to be spending just as much energy on heating the cabin, since like a BEV, a FCEV’s power is all electric.

      * * * * *

      JyChevyVolt, your FUD isn’t merely B.S., it’s unbelievable B.S.!


      1. JyChevyVolt says:

        Ok PP, back to the real world.

        Family of four, driving 500 miles to see Santa’s little village in Winter condition.

        With the Bolt EV
        120 miles stop and charge for 1 hr.
        100 miles stop and charge for 1 hr.
        100 miles stop and charge for 1 hr.
        100 miles stop and charge for 1 hr.
        40 miles stop and charge for 1 hr.
        40 miles, arrived at destination.
        40 miles, stop and charge for 1 hr
        Weather gets colder.
        90 miles, stop and charge for 1 hr.
        90 miles, stop and charge for 1 hr.
        90 miles, stop and charge for 1 hr.
        90 miles, stop and charge for 1 hr.
        100 miles, arrived home.

        That’s 10 hrs of charging.

        With Hyundai fool cell
        2 stops 15 minutes total.

        I don’t know if your married, but I’ll be single after the Bolt EV road trip.

        1. JyChevyVolt says:

          Bolt EV total cost
          That $8.62 charge at home.
          10 *[ (60 min * .20) + $6] = $188.62

          Hyundai fool cell
          Hydrogen cost $10/kg
          Tank capacity 5.63kg
          $10*5.63*2= $112.60

          1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

            Hyundai leases so far include fuel.

            I understand Musk just defends his subsidy greenwashing business with “fool cells” drivel. But what unemployed fool would really want to spend unpredictable amount of hours at chargers during vacation road trip? Because somebody with a job should value his or her own and family time more than $8/hour. Especially those able to afford $50-$150k cars.

          2. SparkEV says:

            1 hour to charge 100 miles with Bolt? That’s like 2 mi/kWh. What, are you cooking your passengers in the car?

            H is over $16/kg. I don’t know where you get your H, but visit a local H station to get true price.

            FUD is strong with you.

            1. JyChevyVolt says:

              We are talking sub zero winter not your fairytale San Diego weather.

              1. SparkEV says:

                100 miles for 1 hr charging is literally half the battery. Do the math; 30 kWh in passenger cabin will literally cook people even in sub zero temperature. For example, electric oven might be 3 kW (or less) on average, so 1 hour cooking turkey may be 3 kWh.

                As for H pricing, yeah, believe all the nonsense you want. But the real world pricing is far different. But even at $10/kg, that’s 3X San Diego gas price. Who in their right mind would pay 3X (or 5X) gasoline price to have worse driving experience than gasoline?

                At least with BEV, there’s home charging advantage. With H, there’s literally zero advantage over gasoline cars while having all the limitations of H.

                But I can see how someone who flunked basic math to think Bolt would only get 100 miles to a charge and H makes sense. It’s all about FUD.

            2. JyChevyVolt says:

              March 06, 2017 Lehigh Valley, Pa.

              Air Products (NYSE: APD), a leader in hydrogen fueling and infrastructure worldwide, today announced that it has achieved a pricing milestone at several California fueling stations, which are now offering hydrogen to fuel cell electric vehicle customers at under $10 per kilogram. Advancements in fueling technology and a greater volume of vehicles now using the stations were important factors in allowing the pricing move to less than $10 per hydrogen kilogram ($9.99/kg).

              1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                This Big Oil propaganda has no relevance to the real world, where the non-subsidized price for H2 fuel is $15-16, or even a bit more.

                Citing a fictitious subsidized price like $10/kg shows that you know your claims are B.S., so you choose to lie about that, too.

              2. SparkEV says:

                Yeah, they can make all the announcements they want. But the fact remains they are still listed $16/kg at fueling station.

                But even at $10/kg, that’s literally over 3 times more than gasoline in San Diego (or 5X more compared to rest of US). Why would anyone pay $10/gal gasoline to be able to fuel only at dozen or so stations? It’s not like you can charge FCEV at home like BEV.

            3. JyChevyVolt says:

              Checkmate homeboy.

              1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                That’s tiddlywinks that you’re playing, troll, not chess.

        2. Nick says:

          So dumb.

          You moved the goal posts. The BEV was still way more efficient on the drive.

          Your charging figures are also silly. Why not take a Model 3 or S on that trip? (If you’re getting a car to optimize for rare trips).


          1. JyChevyVolt says:

            I’m rich so I buy X100D.

            500 mile trip
            The model x efficiency goes down to 51.7% at 10F.
            EPA range is 287 miles. So at 10F, the 100% range becomes 148 miles.

            120 miles, charge 1 hr 5 min (90%)
            120 miles, charge 1 hr 5 min
            120 miles, charge 1 hr 5 min
            120 miles, charge 1 hr 5 min
            20 miles, arrived destination
            100 miles, charge 1 hr 5 min
            120 miles, charge 1 hr 5 min
            120 miles, charge 1 hr 5 min
            120 miles, charge 20 min
            40 miles, arrive home.

            8 hr charging
            teslamotorsclub com/tmc/attachments/efficieny-png.218301/

            1. buu says:

              you fool cell boy that 50% efficiency is for first 20 miles, do you think fool cell would get 100Į EPA range? What efficiency for first 20 miles?…

            2. SparkEV says:

              If you’re rich and have 500 miles trip, why the heck would you drive? I’d fly, probably first class.

              But even if you have to drive, Tesla will get you far more 500 miles even with Tesla 60 due to their charging infrastructure.

              The whole problem with H argument is that you think there’s BEV and H and that’s all. You neglect planes, trains, gas automobiles. For long distance, H is awful even if H stations are as numerous as gas stations.

            3. RCM says:

              You won’t even make the trip in your silly little fool cell car, you will end up stranded on the side of the road. Why?! Because an H2 infrastructure is pretty much non extistant in the entire U.S.

              By the time there is a complete H2 infrastructure in the U.S. BEVs will be too far ahead in terms of price, range and charging infrastructure.

        3. Jelloslug says:

          In cold weather, the H2 station is going to be much slower. Also, if you arrive after another fc car, you will have to wait at least an hour for it to build up pressure.

          1. William says:

            That is thar 3D chess game, that I sees your playin’ thar! Taint farr, Check Matey! 👻

          2. AnonyMouse says:

            That is BS. All the new H2 stations can fill FCVs one right after another without any loss of filling speed. You’re spreading FUD.

            1. Jelloslug says:

              Now THAT is some fake news right there

        4. Terawatt says:

          See, this is the short of behavior that gives away the game and reveals that in your case, Pupu is right to accuse you of deliberately spreading FUD, not trying to state your honest views.

          He pointed out how wrong your statement about the efficiency of FCVs was, and provided a source. In response, what do you do? Stand by your claim, providing your own sources? Admit you were wrong, and accept that a BEV is in fact far more efficient?

          Of course you do neither. Because you don’t care what’s true, you just want FCVs to be a good thing. So you employ the age-old trick known as “moving the goalposts”. All of a sudden the discussion isn’t about efficiency, but about cost and WAF (Wife Acceptance Factor). With this move you hope to distract your opponent into refuting your brand new, unsourced claims, but nobody should take the bait (Sparky did, but he shouldn’t). All you will do is keep inventing new bunk, and claim victory when others get bored with debunking it.

          Unlike Pupu and Sparky I won’t bother with what a practical test like running an FCV or checking the price at a local filling station. There’s a much more fundamental technical reason why your claims in both the efficiency and cost departments are not just actually wrong, but guaranteed to be so.

          An FCV is an electric car. It has a smaller battery than a typical BEV, but it does need one because the power density and lag of fuel cells make them fundamentally unsuitable to power a car directly. But in *addition* to all the components of a BEV, an FCV has a fuel cell stack and a hydrogen tank. By the laws of thermodynamics, then, it is physically impossible to ever design an FCV that is as efficient as A BEV.

          It is especially the battery that makes BEVs less efficient in cold conditions. But this affects FCVs even more than BEVs, because they do all the battery charging as well as discharging while driving. BEVs sometimes charge in garages where is less cold and therefore more efficient.

          As for fuel cost, hydrogen isn’t truly cheaper than the electricity needed to make it. It’s quite possible to sell something at below cost, but not in huge volumes over time unless that cost gets covered somewhere else.

          The simple truth is that hydrogen is abundant, but not the free hydrogen you need. 95% of world hydrogen production is from methane produced as a waste product in industrial processes, and CO2 is the waste product when you scrape H2 from CH4 (the carbon oxidizes when you remove the hydrogen). But this is not what FCVs would be using if we adopted this technology and made millions such cars a year, as we’d have to to make a difference.

          Rather, we would make hydrogen from renewable. That is, we’d use solar and wind to make electricity, and then use electrolysis to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, collecting the hydrogen. Unfortunately this is not nearly as efficient as charging a battery – in fact the loss of 50% is ten times as large (about 5% for charging a battery). Compressing the hydrogen introduces further losses. The chain is exactly the same as for a BEV with some additional steps: a step to hydrolyze (make hydrogen by electrolysis of water), a compression step, a hydrogen distribution step, multiple hydrogen storage steps (at a minimum two; the filling station and the car’s tank), and a fuel cell step (converting the H2 back into electricity by controlled burning – getting water, burned H2, as a waste product).

          Each additional step decreases efficiency and increases cost. And the end result is that an FCV that is a zero-emissions vehicle (one that runs on hydrogen from renewables) is only as energy efficient as a fossil-fuelled car. A BEV is 3-4 times as efficient in the real world, and runs on exactly the same energy sources an FCV does (we ought to choose renewables, or maybe nuclear, but the “make electricity” step in the FCV chain and the BEV chain can be implemented in whatever way we want without any technical implications for the rest of the chain).

          But it gets even worse. Electricity is rather easy to distribute because we have a grid. And we will have the grid whether or not we use FCVs. To run all our vehicles on electricity we need a grid that can handle about 10% more power some 20-40 years from now. It’s easy to gradually upgrade the grid to handle this. Compressed hydrogen on the other hand is very difficult to handle. It’s the smallest molecule in the universe, after all. And when it is mixed with oxygen gas it becomes explosive, not merely combustible. The extremely high energy density – four times higher than gasoline, which is much less explosive to boot! – ought to make hydrogen pipelines, if they are even possible, into extremely attractive terrorist targets. Similarly tank trucks to move the hydrogen. And we have no existing infrastructure at all for storing or distributing the stuff!

          All of these technical challenges with hydrogen are perhaps possible to solve. But if you think making a terrorist-proof hydrogen pipeline system to rival the electric grid, or even just the high-voltage backbone grid, is going to be cheaper than incrementally upgrading the electric grid, you are mad! It will be extremely expensive. Notice that everyone dabbling in the field is always assuming that the public will foot the infrastructure bill.

          Personally, I think it’s so bad that hydrogen isn’t even worth further consideration until we have abundant, dirt cheap, carbon-free, problem-free electricity. Fusion power is the only technology I’m aware of that could potentially make hydrogen fuel a good idea. Even then I think it would only make sense in a plan where a hydrogen distribution system eventually replaces the electric grid, as using two energy distribution technologies that solve exactly the same problem must be much more expensive.

          In the situation we are actually in, where problem-free electricity is increasing but still in short supply in the foreseeable future (a few decades) I think it’s obvious that efficiency alone should exclude FCVs. It is madness to choose more complex electric cars and all the additional steps required when it means using 3-4 times as much energy on transportation. Oil companies love FCVs since it means far fewer cars can run on the same amount of renewable energy, meaning far more will continue to run on fossil energy. Just like with BEVs, is perfectly possible to use coal as the energy source for an FCV. Hydrogen, like batteries, is just an energy carrier.

        5. Pushmi-Pullyu says:


          “Ok PP, back to the real world.”

          There’s nothing in all that FUD you spewed out that’s from the real world. The only thing your post did is remove any real doubt that you’re an EV hater and a shill for Big Oil.

          It’s really amusing how many lies you Big Oil shills have to resort to, to promote the “hydrogen economy” hoax. Lying both about the cost of electricity and the cost of hydrogen fuel!

          But your biggest lie is that you can’t possibly drive 500 miles in a fool cell car, unless you’re driving in circles around one of the very few public H2 fueling stations! With the possible exception of driving north-south in southern California, there is not one single place anywhere in the world you can drive 500 miles in one direction and be able to stop twice to refuel at public H2 fueling stations.

          1. JyChevyVolt says:

            Oh Pupu. 2 EV owner being call a shill by a non EV owner. How ironic.

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              Oh, please. A Big Oil shill like you wouldn’t be caught dead driving an EV, so you can drop the pretense.

              And I don’t own any car, so if we’re gonna measure carbon footprint, then I’d win even if you actually did drive that imaginary Volt of yours.

        6. buu says:

          >Family of four, driving 500 miles to see Santa’s little village in Winter condition.

          ok H2 last station is near Voikoski distance to
          Napapiiri Finland is about 700 km, so in winter you can’t even reach Santa’s village with FCV, not even talking about roundtrip.

          So STOP FUD

          1. JyChevyVolt says:

            Bet you can travel all the way to Spain on fool cell.

      2. Chris says:

        Pushmi pullyu – this might help:

        “…Cold weather is a major problem for fuel cells. Not only do they have difficulty starting but their flaunted clean emissions of water vapor leads to the significant potential for freezing damage to the fuel cell…”

        1. Chris says:

          Oh and this gem from the NREL (gov lab):

          “Fuel Cell Barriers –
          A. Durability – Operation below
          freezing could damage the fuel
          D. Thermal, air and water
          management – Addressing
          freeze is critical in water
          management of fuel cells.
          J. Startup Time/Transient
          Operation– Fuel cell power system
          is required to start rapidly and
          flow the transient loads.”

          1. Chris says:

            But wait…. there’s more!!!!

            “ssues Found with
            Freeze & Rapid Startup of PEM Fuel Cells
            A fuel “cell” can startup at sub-freezing temperatures, but product
            water may form ice if local sub-freezing still exist.
            • Maintaining membrane integrity
            • Fuel starvation (Elimination of water droplets from flow fields)
            • Cathode ice formation
            – Product water forms ice on electrode and blocks air flow
            – Ice formation in cathode flow fields
            • Rapid heat up of cell/cell manifolds to prevent ice formation
            – System heating issue:
            • Where is heat coming from and how much and how fast?
            • What is impact on energy consumption and overall efficiency?
            – Rapid heat up of humidifier to prevent membrane dry out
            • Balance-of-plant: Heating of fluid/gas delivery systems
            – Prevent ice blockage
            – Thermal shock to mechanical components
            – Rapid startup and protection of components
            Majority of these issues appear to be system related.”

    3. Roy_H says:

      Well, that may be partially true, but still what about the summer months. Buy a vehicle so the excess heat energy can be put to good use in the winter, and still be less efficient in the summer is rational??

      It’s not the technology we complain about, it is the fact that the FCV development and initial production are paid for by taxpayers and the H2 distribution network which will cost $Trillions will be paid for by taxpayers all for the benefit of oil companies. These oil companies should foot the bill if they want to sell hydrogen!

      Only a small percentage of the population will choose to buy FCVs, mostly out of ignorance. Right now all FCVs are sold with free H2 for x years, but when this freebee is ended even with taxpayer subsidies, the H2 will be twice the cost of electricity and most people will choose BEVs for their lower running costs.

      1. JyChevyVolt says:

        BEV is much more efficient than fuel cell for those who live in the South.

        The efficiency loss is made up by reducing charging time; something you can never recover.

        Subsidies shouldn’t be a topic of discussion on a EV site.

        1. Nick says:

          What are you talking about?

          EVs take 15 seconds of your time to charge when you arrive home.

          “Subsidies shouldn’t be a topic of discussion on a EV site.”


          1. JyChevyVolt says:

            We’re talking about 500 mile road trip to see Santa.

            If I lived up North, no way in hell I’ll own a BEV.

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              Plug-in EVs, and especially BEVs, aren’t practical for northern climates?

              Gee, that certainly will come as a big surprise to all those BEV drivers in Norway!

              😆 😆 😆

              But thanks for keeping us entertained with your ridiculous B.S., Mr. Big Oil shill!

    4. Wally says:

      What nonsense, EVs are NOT less efficient in the cold. You confuse reduce battery range with efficiency.

      1. JyChevyVolt says:

        If I can only travel 130-160 miles in the Bolt EV during winter, that’s a efficiency loss about 55-34%. Whether that loss through battery and cabin heating is immaterial.

        If I’m drawing 64kW to charge the Bolt with a EPA range of 238 miles, I expect 248 miles.

        We haven’t discussed charging efficiency. Our time is finite on Earth. I’ll rather not wait hours charging on the road.

        1. Bill Howland says:


          I don’t know why everyone is giving you such grief. I’ve owned two electric cars for 7 years now – starting with a 2011 Roadster and a 2011 Volt.

          Currently, I own similar vehicles, a 2018 BOLT and a 2014 ELR.

          My last ‘fill-up’ of my BOLT was after 54 miles of driving using 90% of my battery capacity. Yes there was warming of the car for a bit before I got into it. I’ll be the first to admit that BEV’s are not optimal for cold climates, and frankly are not cheaper to operate in the wintertime, had I not invested in Solar Panels and net metering.

          So it is interesting that in the summer time, with careful driving, I can go about 250 miles or more compared to around 1/5 th as far in the summertime in the same BEV.

          I fully understand that like ICE vehicles, or even Phev’s like the Volt or ELR, good use is made of the otherwise ‘waste’ heat, which really drains down the battery in a BEV. Of course, the other huge efficiency loss is the battery ITSELF MUST BE HEATED to prevent damage, both while charging, driving, and even sitting still in a parking lot.

          Worst case, My Bolt EV uses 10X the power from the electric receptacle or wallbox in the coldest weather compared to the same distance driven during the spring and fall. Summertime is a slightly lower efficiency but its such a slight range hit it isn’t worth mentioning.

          I expect all kinds of people to tell me I’m wrong, – but as from other articles here, they think VERY COLD weather is 39 deg F with the sun shining on them.

          1. Bill Howland says:

            err: 2017 bolt

      2. Terawatt says:

        I’m afraid the nonsense is all yours in this case. The efficiency of the vehicle includes the efficiency of the battery, and that does decrease as temperature decreases and internal resistance increases.

        Why did you think range decreases?? If you charge a battery and use X kWh to do so, then obviously the shorter you travel on that, the less efficient the car is.

        There is a distinction to be made in some circumstances: simply storing energy in a battery is fairly efficient in low temperatures. If temperature climbs again and you then drive the car, not much is lost. But operating (charging or discharging) the battery at low temp generates more heat loss in the battery because of the increased resistance.

        1. JyChevyVolt says:

          Once we have solid state battery, Norway should see 90% adoption. Exciting to see what Norway looks like with solid state battery.

        2. Djoni says:

          The number of JYchevyvolt are a farewell BS.
          It would probably take a third or half the charging that he figure to get the ride, specialy if you start from a BEV that was confortably sitting in a heated place.

          You might get 200 miles on the first strech and keeping the battery hot will certainly be possible to do 160+ miles on the next step.

          Even in cold climate the heat generated by continuous driving, discharging and fast charging will heat the battery close to it’s optimal temperature.
          Certainly more if you have active thermal management, like Bolt or Tesla have.

          So, I don’t care about imaginary numbers.

          1. JyChevyVolt says:

            Well someone did a winter trip on the Bolt EV and came out with my numbers. I don’t think most of you even drive BEV.

            1. Djoni says:

              I don’t know about “most of you”, but I drove my Leaf MY2012 more than 150 000 kilometer in some kind of real, I mean real winter here in Québec, CAN.

              So, I know the real number, and you most probably never drove a pure BEV in real winter time or you did it badly.

              Whatever, some guy will do the real test, if it has not been done yet.

              BTW, you never stop to heat or else and count double time for?

    5. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

      Or add alcohol heaters. They’d have to be a good design for clean combustion but they wouldn’t need a complex fuel system.

      In my Prius I’m effectively already burning ethanol. For 8k miles per year it’s about 16 gallons of ethanol per year. There’s about there’s about 22.5kWh of energy per gallon of ethanol. which would give me about 360kWh of heating.

      Combined with heat pumps in warmer climates, if you replaced gasoline vehicles, you could probably cover heating pretty well just with existing ethanol production.

      1. Terawatt says:

        Heat pumps should be much more extensively used, not just in cars but in offices and homes and so on. It is by far the most efficient solution.

        Unfortunately their effectiveness decreases with temperature, so when you need them the most they are least capable.

        This can be addressed in at least two ways: dimensioning the heat pump for worst case, meaning it’s ridiculously powerful in moderately cool conditions, or supplementing the pump with a resistive heater used only when the pump can’t deliver demanded power alone.

        I don’t like the introduction of any kind of burner. After all, it can only matter if it’s a meaningful amount of energy involved, and therefore this goes against the whole point of quitting the burning game in the first place.

        My 80% SoH 2012 LEAF could certainly use a diesel heater during some of Norway’s winter days – I get just 40 or so anxiety-free miles. But I get by without, and this year’s electric cars are so much better, and have better heaters too! The cars that will sell in huge volumes – maybe 2025, maybe 2030 – will be just fine with heat pumps running on the battery power.

        1. Djoni says:

          You are late with heatpump technology.

          They mostly, except the cheapest one, all have inverter driven compressor and fan.

          So it use only the power needed to the amount of work,(heating or cooling) to be done

      2. Chris says:

        Didn’t three Volvo c30 BEV have ethanol heating?

  11. Don Zenga says:

    Even after 1 million + PEVs were sold in 2017, some automakers are designing FEVs.

    Ask Hyundai to keep reading Chinese EV sales in the coming months and they will get a better idea.

    I believe Hyundai is not willing to sell as many EVs and that’s why Ioniq-EV sold very few units.

    1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

      Don Zenga
      “Ask Hyundai to keep reading Chinese EV sales in the coming months and they will get a better idea.”

      Sorry do disappoint fellow BEV cultists and trolls, but Chinese government prefers FCEV over BEV, the same as other governments. Maybe they all have a clue after all.

      Check “Table 1: Credits calculation”

      They have already started building hydrogen stations.

      1. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

        That doesn’t show China preferring HFCV.
        Long-range BEVs and HFCVs (that meet the minimum performance standard) will get 5 credits.

        1. zzzzzzzzzz says:


          Yes, but as far as I understand from reading it, it is enough to add 31.25+ kWh FC to get these 5 credits, as range extender or whatever. You don’t even need full power to come from FC, 30% of motor power is enough. To get it for pure BEV you would need (5-0.8)/0.012=350 km range.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Sorry to disappoint fool cell fanboys and other science deniers, but the Laws of Physics work the same in China as anywhere else. So using compressed hydrogen to fuel cars or trucks will be ridiculously impractical and horribly expensive there, too.

        1. AnonyMouse says:

          Sigh. . . More BS and FUD from Pushy Troll. China is making a push in putting hydrogen fuel cell vehicles on the road as a way of achieving their NEV goals.

          Shanghai is putting 3,000 fuel cell buses on the road and building 5-10 hydrogen stations by 2020. In five years Shanghai plans to have 50 hydrogen stations and 20,000 fuel cell cars in service on the road. Pushy Troll is too dumb to understand how the Law of Physics works, but China actually does understand. As always, the only fool here is you Pushy.

          Below is a news story about Shanghai’s hydrogen fuel cell vehicle development plan.

          “As news reports of the demise of the internal combustion engine in China continue, the city of Shanghai earlier this month issued a development plan of its own pertaining to the city’s developement plans for fuel cell cars.”

          “Shanghai is planning to build anywhere between 5-10 hydorgen stations and plans to launch at least 3,000 fuel cell buses and vehicles by 2020. It also plans to raise the number of hydrogen stations to 50 in five years once the target of 20,000 fuel cell cars are in service.”

          “In a press release yesterday the Shanghai Science and Technology Commission said yesterday that it was planning to boost development of fuel cell cars in the coming years.”

          1. philip d says:

            Shenzhen already has replaced their entire city bus fleet with 14,500 EV buses. The only way H2 will win out is those in the central government find it more lucrative personally for themselves to award contracts for hydrogen stations and fleets.


      3. philip d says:

        Weird, then why has the city of Shenzhen already replaced their entire fleet of 14,500 public buses with electric ones? I wonder why they wasted their money if like you said the Chinese government prefers HFC buses?

  12. Roy_H says:

    I actually doubt that Hyundai really cares how many they sell. Their government pays them to develop and sell FCVs, so there is no cost and this way they hedge their bets in case FCVs win out. I wish they would stop though, as it only perpetrates the idea that FCVs are a viable option. This just makes it easier for our government(s) to justify paying for the H2 distribution network.

  13. zzzzzzzzzz says:

    Review from people who just drove the prototype from LA to Vegas:

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      …a review which, I note, omits any mention of refueling the car. So they didn’t have to deal with the hassle of finding one of the very few H2 fueling stations, nor worrying about whether or not the car would have to wait in line, nor whether the station would have enough H2 available to fill the car’s tank. Neither did they experience the sticker shock of non-subsidized H2 fuel prices at $15-16 per kg!

      Doesn’t matter if it’s the most wonderful car in the world, if it’s powered by compressed hydrogen. Talk about putting lipstick on a pig!

      1. zzzzzzzzzz says:


        Get a life, troll.

    2. philip d says:

      “The Hyundai should have a range advantage, up a claimed 30 percent to ‘more than 350 miles’ on the EPA’s test cycle.”

      So still less range than almost all gas cars and so few fuel stations. Won’t be taking this on too many trips and can’t fuel in your garage. So every week commuters will have to go out of their way to find a fueling station and waste some significant percent of their weekly range just to get to the fuel station and back to their house.

      It will only reasonably work for those that have a fuel station directly in the path from their home to work and when they go out of town to have a fueling station directly between their home and destination.

  14. Prsnep says:

    It is beautiful!

  15. Brian McGranahan says:

    It’s like watching a company come out with a new CD player. “Now eve more compact”.

    1. Prsnep says:

      It is not. Fuel cell vehicles and electric vehicle will be complimentary. They can, and will, both survive and cater to different people.

  16. Get Real says:

    LMAO, notice that the trolls who come here and shill for fool cells are all serial anti-Tesla trolls like zzzzz.

    I’m all for a competition between BEVs and fool cell cars, AS LONG AS BIG OIL PAYS FOR THE H2 INFRASTRUCTURE!!!

    I will put the efficiency/costs and convenience of my Volt, Bolt and soon Model 3 charged off my Solar PV up against fool cells any day.

    It will be game over in less then 5 years for H2 for transportation at the current rate of progress.

Leave a Reply