What’s It Like To Drive 900 Miles In A Hyundai Nexo Hydrogen Car?

DEC 25 2018 BY MARK KANE 93

In a single word … expensive. In two words … expensive and difficult.

It seems the lack of a hydrogen infrastructure limits the Hyundai NEXO capabilities.

In a joint review of the Hyundai NEXO, Mr. Mobile [Michael Fisher] and Joshua Vergara, drove the car 900 miles (1,450 km) from San Diego to Sacramento over five days.

The NEXO made a good impression and was considered the best hydrogen fuel cell model so far. (better than Toyota Mirai) It’s got great features and comfort.

With more than 300 miles of range on a tank and 5-minute refuel, it could be a perfect zero-emission car. However, there are only 36 hydrogen stations in California (not even talking about the hydrogen desert in other states). Furthermore, the gap between them sometimes forces one to change the route. That was the case in the review and likely in real life, too.

“In some alternate reality, it’s not electric cars replacing gas-guzzlers on the nation’s highways, but hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. I recently got a glimpse of that alternate timeline, spending five days behind the wheel of Hyundai’s newest hydrogen car, the NEXO. My co-pilot: Joshua Vergara of JVTechTea. My mission? A 900-mile road trip from San Diego to Sacramento using nothing but hydrogen … and leaving nothing but water behind. Spoiler alert: we accomplished our mission, but not exactly the way we’d planned. Join Joshua Vergara and MrMobile for the Hyundai NEXO Review!”

The other thing is that the cost of refueling was always above $80. NEXO can store up to 6.3 kg of hydrogen and if 1 kg cost more than $16, then, of course, it’s expensive to run. Combined with a price tag between $58,300 and $61,800, the NEXO will not be able to compete with electric cars at similar prices. Those cars have a solid fast-charging infrastructure and a much lower energy cost per mile.

Separate relation from the trip by Joshua Vergara:

For almost an entire week, MrMobile (Michael Fisher) and I spent time in a car basically from the future – the Hyundai NEXO. With all of the bells and whistles you could want in a road trip vehicle, our trip was propelled by a still new alternative fuel source: hydrogen. See how our journey unfolded on this trip from San Diego to Napa Valley wine country!

Hyundai Nexo specs:

  • about 370 miles (595 km)
  • 0-60 mph in 9.5 seconds
  • 120 kW and 395 Nm electric motor
  • fuel cell is able to provide around 95 kW of power, together with 40 kW from the battery. A total output of 135 kW is available

Categories: Hyundai, Videos

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

93 Comments on "What’s It Like To Drive 900 Miles In A Hyundai Nexo Hydrogen Car?"

newest oldest most voted

Maybe you meant to say from the past? Hydrogen is a dead in the water technology.

Companies push it to distract from EVs and slow down adoption. Otherwise, it makes little sense.

I think it’s dead for cars but it could be useful for boats, some trucks, maybe some kind of planes or to replace diesel generators.

Who’ll pay almost an order of magnitude higher price for H over diesel? Only use might be where oxygen is not available, and they need fresh water, such as submarines and space.

“Does it come with free fuel?”
“Enjoy complimentary fuel for three years or $12,000 maximum, whichever comes first.”

But of course, you can enjoy your free time at free chargers instead. It is so nice to spend your holiday time socializing with fellow enthusiasts in long line for free charging 😉

Yep, there are probably some niche applications but light-duty vehicles seems crazy considering battery prices coming down, electricity being very cheap, and electricity being available in every home.

Not to mention how wasteful it is to make, transport, and store hydrogen. Hint: gets up there with gasoline.

Hydrogen can be delivered to stations for $2 per kilogram. It’s expensive only due to lack of infrastructure and economies of scale.

Even if you can get it to that cost (and that is a big IF, we have failed at every hydrogen cost target so far), that is only the production cost. The storage and compression costs would still double that if not more.

Storage is dirt cheap for hydrogen. Just a cheap dumb tank with standard over-pressure valve. No need for tens of thousands of little unstable cylindricals with highly flammable electrolyte that require precise temperature control to prevent thermal runaway.

Compression adds extra cost, but it isn’t the long term way. Larger new design stations are expected to use liquid hydrogen evaporation as far as I understand. Quite different design. IDEALHY shows cost at 1.72 € / kg LH2 for a 50 ton LH2/d liquefaction plant.


Of course costs will be much higher if you need just 100 kg a day.

In Germany they’ve spent maybe a billion dollars building up the infrastructure and they have about 50 Hydrogen fueling stations and are building more, yet the Mirai sales aren’t taking off other than the usual handful of early adopters.

Even with economies of scale, hydrogen stations are expensive to build and maintain. It is the exact opposite of electric charging stations which are cheap to build and maintain. (Heck, the plug in my garage is my charging station).

These stations are not for Mirai. It is for next generation of hydrogen cars that will come in around 2020 and will be produced at larger scale.

And you math is off by an extra zero. 50 stations at 1-2 million each can’t reach billion dollars.

What’s it like to use three times less energy to go the same distance in a battery powered electric vehicle?

Is that including the cost to produce, transport, and store the hydrogen? But when compared to gas, 6 times less?

My bicycle has no tailpipe and no direct energy needs. Works just fine for local commute. What’s it like to use it instead of taking a car and creating congestion to go to a shop 3 miles away and getting fat and sick?

Extra bonus – it doesn’t require huge battery that creates 15 tons of CO2 and huge amount of toxic chemicals at production stage.

On the other hand, 1000 mile round family trip that I will likely need to do next week is best done in a car, and a car that doesn’t require to spend precious holiday time at congested chargers. My time is not worthless for me.

$80 to go 300 miles !?!?!?! That’s at least TEN TIMES more expensive than it would cost me to drive 300 miles in my 2013 Leaf.

Haha, and they still need to put a 40 kWh battery in it to make it work. What a piece of crap. I’m so sick of this hydrogen crap. Just shut up.

Even gas is way less expensive; any modern gas car could go 300 miles on less than $40. So you more than double the cost, for what? 1/2 reduction in emissions? Good luck with that business model.

At least EVs give you the benefit of much lower operating cost, even if you exclusively use DCFC as a source of energy for the car. The ONLY downsides of EVs are cost (which will be a non issue in 5 years or less) and speed of charging (which will be solved before 2030 at the latest). Hydrogen would need to become even cheaper than electricity in order to compete, which is physically impossible since it requires either fossil fuel refining or a sh!t ton of electricity to make in the first place.

Read the units again. The battery can deliver 40 kW of power; there’s no mention of its capacity.

Battery is Prius – esque at 1500 watt-hours. (1.5 kwh).

Not to mention that once the battery runs out then you only have 95kW from the fuel cell. How did that feel behind the wheel? Quite disconcerting I imagine.

Wait just a minute there!
95kW ≈127HP. With the “Prius-esque” (thanks Bill Howland) battery we essentially have a 127HP Prius-style hybrid.
At twice the price and twice the fuel cost, what’s not to like?

Nobody would actually pay this of course, he fuel is thrown in for free to find takers for leasedeals for compliance purposes.

Hyundai can reach compliance much more easily simply by selling Ionic and Kona.

Those don’t come with travel provision for ZEV credits, the HFCV does. Hydrogen make perfect sense as long as there is enough subsidies/incentives.

Hyundai doesn’t need to sell any ZEVs, be they BEVs or HFCVs, in CARB states.

Hyundai and Kia are NOT required to sell ZEVs in CARB states, since they are Intermediate Sized Manfacturers that can meet their entire ZEV requirement with TZEV credits. TZEVs are Transitional Zero Emission Vehicles, colloquially know as PHEV (plugin hybrid electric vehicles).

Per §1962.2(b)(3):
(3) Requirements for Intermediate Volume Manufacturers. For 2018 and subsequent model years, an intermediate volume manufacturer may meet all of its ZEV credit percentage requirement, under subdivision 1962.2(b), with credits from TZEV.

List of Large and Intermediate Sized Manufacturers:

How can you drive 300 miles in a leaf?

Over 5 days I am sure they can.

Leaf can drive about 500 miles a day even with the crappy battery without thermal management. SparkEV was driven 650 miles in a day (16 hours), and 1000 miles a day is possible.

And refuelable car of any kind can drive 1,500 miles a day with couple of drivers on board. This is kind of Catch 22 – you need to find a client rich enough to pay premium for Leaf like car over regular gas (hybrid) car, and this person needs to think his time is worthless so he/she would spend it at public chargers.
With right amount of taxpayer money spent and enough enthusiasm it may be possible, but I don’t see how it is going to scale up.

It’s this little thing called charging. The farthest I’ve driven in a single day is 400 miles.

6.3 kg * $16/kg = $100.80 for 6.3 kg to go 370 miles… or about $0.27 per mile. That works out to be somewhat more expensive than gas and way more expensive than electricity…

Plus it should be noted this trip was only 450 miles each way. There is literally no pair of points on Earth 900 miles apart where you can drive between them using a solely hydrogen powered vehicle…

Unless you cheated and had a support vehicle bringing hydrogen to you along the way.

“There is literally no pair of points on Earth 900 miles apart where you can drive between them using a solely hydrogen powered vehicle…”

We’ve covered this before but I don’t believe your claim is correct if you’re talking road miles. You can drive the Nexo 185 miles from San Diego into Mexico and still make it back to San Diego. From there you drive the 450 miles to Sacramento and fill up. Though now have 370 miles of range which will get you to southern Oregon. So the two points are from Southefn Oregon to about 185 miles south from San Diego. This of course leaves you stranded in southern Oregon but abandoning the Nexo there is probably not as bad an idea as continuing to use it.

That is called driving in a circle, not a straight line, genius. This sounds miserable. I would rather be in 2009 in a Tesla Roadster stopping at KoA campgrounds and taking it slow than in this dystopian, fuel cell future. People are driving Nissam Leafs to Las Vegas from LA, and GM BoltEVs on the same route described, every weekend. Streets are clogged with Tesla cars and I pity the fools who pay for hydrogen.

“somewhat more expensive than gas”? A 30mpg car currently costs ~$0.08/mile which means hydrogen is actually more than triple the fuel cost!

But hybrids get more than 30 MPG, and Nexo is a battery carrying hybrid. It’s closer to 5 times the fuel cost for H compared to latest equivalent gasoline hybrids.

Taylor Marks said:
“There is literally no pair of points on Earth 900 miles apart where you can drive between them using a solely hydrogen powered vehicle…”

Not true. In Europe, the hydrogen station network allows a HFCV to travel between two points well over 900 of your earth miles apart. You can travel from Norway or Sweden to northern Italy, southern Austria, Paris, or Scotland UK solely on hydrogen. Today the eastern edge of Europe’s hydrogen network is Berlin, but by next year it will extend to Warsaw, Poland.


FYI, you can purchase hydrogen for less than $16/kg. At some stations, hydrogen sells for as low as $9.99/kg.

6.3 kg * $9.99/kg = $62.94 for 6.3 kg to go 370 miles… or about $0.17 per mile.

Since the Nexo is a midsized CUV, its fueling costs should be compared to a midsized ICE CUV. Just sayin’.


“You earth miles”. Are you from another planet or do you use those kilometer things? 😉

It’s good to see a real-world report of what it’s like to drive one of these hydrogen powered cars. One gets tired of reading posts by “fool cell” fanboys who seem to be motivated only by shilling for Big Oil and promoting the “hydrogen economy” hoax, rather than talking about the practical difficulties of driving such a car.

I think it’s rather notable that all of these FCEVs come with something like 3 years’ worth of free fuel. Nobody would buy or lease a car if they actually had to pay $16/kg or more for the fuel.

They say a fool cell car can go about twice the distance on a kg of H2 than a gasmobile can on a gallon of gas, but that still equates to $8 per gallon! Europeans may not think the cost is that high, compared to what they’re paying for petrol, but remember that’s the price of H2 fuel with no added tax at all.

Actually, all H FCEV are “hybrids” in that they carry battery. So if one compares gasoline hybrid to FC hybrid, distance they go for kg/gallon is roughly similar.

But how far they go for every dollar spent is very different.

Yes, but equating distance kg to gal makes the dollar easy to compute. $3.25/gal vs $16.50/kg means 5 times more expensive for H.

How do oil companies benefit from a fuel made from water and alternative energy?

Chad; commercial H2 is all from reformed methane.

Commercial electricity is one third of thermal energy from burned methane or coal. Remaining 2/3 are wasted at various stages of the process.
Yes, fossil fuel is usually cheapest energy source at this time on this planet, if it was your point. Most of the time.

Reforming methane is more efficient and cleaner process than burning it, if it is your choice.

They don’t use water and solar to produce the H2, but hydrocarbons as a ‘cheaper’ method.

I’m surprised all of the hydrogen stations they visited are functional.
If they get a bad break that’s the end of their trip.

Yup, as they say in the Army–you (fool cell car) are a No GO at this station!

This might be true of electric cars as well. (Or for that matter, gas cars.)

That depends on distance to next “fuel stop”. H stations are something like 50 miles apart. You can’t beg someone for H, but you can beg someone to use their home outlet.

I know I don’t need to beg, just offer money and people will gladly let me plug in. However, I can’t get hydrogen into my car by offering $10-20 in cash.

LOL. Considering H costs $16.50/kg, you should offer $165 even if they have H at home if you’re going to offer $10-20 for electricity.

Very good and informative, love the rose gold color, the vehicle is very nice inside and out, to bad it’s not electric because Hydrogen is just no answer to anything it is just a perpetuation of the same problems electric has solved….Zero emissions.

Yup – beautiful very practical car other than being H2 powered.

This is the thing that gets me about these cars. Looks like they’ve figured everything out finally.

EXCEPT how to refuel economically. That $80 I’m quite sure is a subsidized price, since the Hydrogen Dispensaries require so much capital investment and so much maintenance to keep them working – not to mention the currently high operating cost of them.

As far as being CLEANER than my 2 ev’s , How about I put a fan on my front lawn and put a HEPA filter on it? Would that satisfy the fuel cell people?

They did not figure out much… the bulky and heavy fuel cell and hydrogen tanks do not deliver any meaningful energy and power, once the tiny battery is depleted, think slopes, climbing, the car is pretty much useless as motion. They are so bulky and heavy that the internal geometry is a joke, including the front truck which is full of useless junk. They don’t even have space for dual motor setup. The center of gravity is a complete joke. High power charging will wipe them out, it is just superior to any high pressure hydrogen filling, no matter what.

Do Not Read Between The Lines

It’s 127hp. I think it’ll be fine on slopes.

Fine, as beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Do Not Read Between The Lines. 127 hp on a long mountain grade with a 4000 lb. curb weight before including people and luggage will be slow going.

For most scenarios it will be just fine but there will be edge cases where you will have really subpar 60s VW bus level of performance. Not ideal for a $60k modern car.

“I’m a sun starved winter wimp this time of year” he says in sunny California as I look out my window at 12:50 PM as I look out in to my dark Arctic day since the sun have not still returned. I giggled…

Iceland a geothermal… I’m betting that isn’t economic on a household scale. 🙁

Yes it currently is expensive, inefficient and the infrastructure is lacking. As previously discussed hydrogen costs can reduce with a factor of a least 5 when it scales up and renewables are used to generate it. The efficiency can double with the research going on in among others fuel cells. That leaves the infrastructure. Are all these developments sufficient to give it part of the car market? Previously I could give it some thought but especially in the last year I don’t believe in hydrogen for car purposes anymore.

Multiple markets are already have an EV market share above 5% EV. Market growth is around 50-100% a year. This means there isn’t much time for hydrogen to start being a threat to EV’s. They may already be too late.

In large scale energy storage (where no hydro is available) and for long haul trucks, large ships and planes there may still be an opportunity. But also here developments should be quick before battery densities and prices catch up.

Which company hell bent on bankruptcy use H to fuel their truck and planes and ship to increase scale when fossil fuel is order of magnitude cheaper? Simple question to ask, why would ANYONE pay 5X price of gasoline to increase scale for H?

Well one could say that only 5-10 years ago people paid huge amounts just to own an electric car just because they accelerated fast. It was and still is not cost effective to drive an electric car without subsidies. But the potential for cost reduction in batteries is huge therefore companies and governments invest in it. There is the belief that further development can improve the environment and be cheaper at the same time. For hydrogen the commercialisation didn’t really start yet. The development is something like 10 years behind EV’s. As said the potential here is also huge. While the life cycle efficiency of a hydrogen powered vehicle is maybe 1/3th of an electrical car all the developments in efficiency could narrow this gap considerably. Also production of hydrogen maybe in the form of Ammonia will become significantly cheaper and more efficient. Here are also people that believe it is a vital part of the future infrastructure. And these people apparently cover some of the biggest industrial companies in the world: Nikola, Toyota, Hyundai, Scania, Air liquide, MAN marine, Alstrom, Shell to name a few. To say something able it what technology survives one can look at other industries.… Read more »

@Olaf; H2 is ten years behind EVs and yet started 30 years before😄😄😄

G2 has it RIGHT: Fuel cells have been “Just around the corner” for decades.

Fuel Cell technology has Excited the chemical/refining industry much more so than EV’s have excited the electrical industry…. Probably because in the general case- ev’s charging slowly overnight at individual homes or apartments – will provide NO increase in the loading of the “GRID” – in fact it will be about the same INCREASE as Compact Fluorescents and LEDs have had on DECREASING grid consumption; mostly because cars charging slowly overnight are beneficial to central station operation and is taking up the slack traditionally taking by industrial manufacture that is in some places of the US non-existent any longer.

So yes, both H2 and ev cars are still in the developmental stage, but EVs have come along much further with under 1/10th the effort.

H2 vehicles have made noteworthy progress, but at a HUGE developmental expense. I’m sure H2 proponents are very disappointed they haven’t made further progress for all the money they’ve spent.

Let me flush that out in the next comment.

Uh…. TAKEN rather than TAKING ; and FLESH rather than FLUSH.

Per Olaf: “… As previously discussed hydrogen costs can reduce with a factor of a least 5 when it scales up and renewables are used to generate it….”

Oh I gotta see that. Of course you are including all PRACTICAL costs such as the huge expenses racked up at the Dispensary.

I know that Hydrogen as an interim by-product has a low manufacture cost. The problem is $80 / fill up does not remotely cover the expenses at the Dispensary where common people buy the stuff.


BEV can take 100% market, it is fine, it isn’t like it is winner takes all game. It isn’t the first time it has most of the market either, it already happened in 1900s.

It doesn’t mean the market will be locked to one brand/technology just like it isn’t now. You will still have new buyers that would be looking for better offers, and different offers for different needs.

Look at light bulbs for example. Compact fluorescent almost replaced incandescent legacy bulbs few years ago, and so what? Now they are at the bottom shelf if present at all, as most buy LEDs for incandescent replacement because they are usually better.

For $80 I can “fill” our EV for 2-3 months.

H2 -> dead tech.

Yah, I can fill my Geo Metro for 2 months and go over a thousand miles!

I don’t like high running costs.

It can only be reduced with scale. I imagine Hyundai pays for 3 years of fueling costs.

What happens to FCEV after free fuel period runs out? Unless price drops by 75% in 3 years, there’s no way people will continue using H. And once the word spread that H cars have 3 year useful life, whatever scale that was there will shrink even more.

So the idea is get me hook on free fuel and then later make me pay whatever they demand.

There is another business on the streets that works that way too.

One could lease the vehicles and not face the unknown.

Nothing’s free. You can’t have a business by throwing away an otherwise perfectly good car after only 3 years, not even Hyundai.

If I were running Toyota I’d fire myself. Plus no golden parachute, but a free FCV but I’d have to pay for the fuel, and I could not drive anything else..
I think that would be appropriate punishment.

Yet Toyota is most profitable automaker in the world, or close to it.
If I would need to bet who has more clue how to make cars, your o Toyota, I would bet on Toyota.

I remember recently one deep BS mouth guy was talking how he will make Alien Dreadnought and teach these fools at Toyota how to make cars. He ended up with some temp workers (aliens?) in a sweatshop tent and manual production line at the verge of mental breakdown. What a jerk.

The station in Santa Barbara to the station in Campbell (San Jose) is 289 miles along PCH.

Why did you not take it if the Nexo has a range of 366 miles?

“0-60 mph in 9.5 seconds”

That is a total no-go for a $60K vehicle.

The Model 3 Performance (which costs similar) does it from one third of that time.

Who cares about acceleration. Certainly not crossover buyers. Most regular people don’t even have an idea what is 0-60 time of their car.

At best they may sell 1,000 vehicles / year. At least it will beat Clarity-FCV.

“KNOW YOUR MARKET” as Toyota proponent Star Trek John would say. The question is, “Why would Toyota waste $millions on the MIRAI, when it is destined to be a slow-seller? ” When it was first released, Toyota Management stated “THE MIRAI is a more important vehicle to Toyota than even the PRIUS”. I’ll agree that Toyota rarely makes mistakes. I can only assume they looked at the very cheap H2 cost of manufacture when looking at Industrial processes as a by-product, and figured BORING DETAILS over trivialities would sort themselves out sooner or later and any nagging problems – at Dispensaries for instance, aren’t worth worrying about, such as: 1). 500 kw power consumption for a Large Dispensary. 2). Incredibly huge real estate square footage requirement. 3). Inability to use reciprocating compression due to the CHESTNUT of oil Blow-By with Hydrogen, necessitating far more unreliable Diaphram compression. 4). 15,000 Pound per Square Inch pressure requirement – due to the requirement of a 5 minute fill up to 10,000 PSI in the consumer vehicle using practically sized hoses/nozzles. 5). Very expensive piping, valves, and storage tanks at the dispensary to handle peak refueling loads during the day. 6). Due to the… Read more »
Bill Howland – quote: “How Toyota could have ignored this ‘trivial problem’ just because they don’t deal in this end of the business is to me, a mystery.” ————————- I suppose hindsight is a wonderful thing, but they (and BEV proponents) were both initially trying to solve a common problem – have a future car with zero pollution emissions. I suspect if I had worked for Toyota 15-20 years ago, and was comparing battery versus hydrogen technologies, the facts which would have put me off batteries would have then been the extremely high cost of the batteries and the speed of “refuelling”. It’s reasonable to think that hydrogen may have shown more promise in both respects – then. The options open to them (then) were to ignore the ‘trivial problems’ you describe, ignore even bigger problems around battery usage (at the time), or do nothing. Arguably, yes, they bet wrong – but, hindsight can be a wonderful thing……:) Roll forward, and what is different now is firstly the much, much lower cost of batteries, and secondly the vastly increased speed of their recharging. Improvements at a speed far faster than was predicted. Combine that with various problems surrounding hydrogen for… Read more »

Tunny – interesting comment…. I suspect the “INTEREST” toyota has – has more to do with gov’t subsidy than any real analytical thinking.

Bill Howland – quote: “I suspect the “INTEREST” toyota has – has more to do with gov’t subsidy than any real analytical thinking.” ———– Good point, likely with some truth now, but I think it’s worth thinking why it all came about, why any subsidies even proposed. So go back about 20-30 years. The issue then was cleaning up the air of polluted cities, largely from traffic fumes. Hence a search for cars, trucks, buses that didn’t emit noxious fumes. Back then, batteries just weren’t really a starter – way too expensive, slow to charge, no charging infrastructure outside the home (which was slow anyway). So hence hydrogen and fuel cells get seen as the answer. I imagine a scenario of those at the top saying “give me an answer”! Those below need an answer (any answer), so “hydrogen” it is. They know that such solves the immediate question asked of them, and prudent not to say any more…… Their bosses have been given an answer, so if a politician gets asked how he intends to clean up the air, reduce dependence on foreign oil, etc, then he’s got an answer ready. Simplistic at best of course, impractical at worst.… Read more »

The US DOE, Japanese NEDO, and their European equivalents have squandered and continue to squander tens of billions of dollars on an obvious loser (fuel cells). The manufacturers have to produce enough FCEVs to pass the “laugh test” for fear of the goverment tit running dry. The governments want to keep this charade going because no one wants to admit they’ve wasted billions (and if you’re a high level bureaucrat, having a big program under your command proves how important you are).

The point missed by many commenters both here and elsewhere is a) Hydrogen cars are only starting to be mass-produced as the technology is very new – unlike lithium which has been around for 27 years. As soon as 100,000 cars a produced per year, the price will be equal to be a conventional car. There is no lack of resources to enable this to happen; it is manufacturing capacity alone. b) Hydrogen can be used in other sectors to a much greater degree than lithium batteries. This includes steel-making (almost half of the lifetime emissions of a car are via production – and a lot of this is steel; although a BEV requires almost double the energy to produce the battery than for manufacturing the car). This means that if we start using hydrogen, we decarbonise other sectors of the economy over time. Using batteries, to the exclusion of hydrogen, we are never going to decarbonise; and overall car emissions are always going to be high. This is compounded by the fact that lithium batteries will only ever supply enough energy for peak shaving, and will not supply enough energy for wholesale industry demand; which is usually met by… Read more »

THE POINT you guys miss is: who is going to pay the unsubsidized price for refueling the car? The car may be somewhat new this go around, but Hydrogen or other variants of fuel cells have been around for decades.

Did you ever been out of US? Gasoline price at pump with taxes is already on par with hydrogen in most of developed world. Or hydrogen is cheaper. E.g. gasoline 1.6 €/l or $7/US gal. Hydrogen may be 9-10 €/kg now and fuel consumption may be only half per gasoline gallon equivalent.


Taxes on H2 fuel will increase of course, but it will take many years to happen. It would be delusional to assume H2 fuel pre-tax cost will not go down as well over these years as scale of production and infrastructure increases. As you have noted, some of pieces of this technology were around for decades, and it isn’t like nobody knows how to do math on it, except armchair experts from InsideEvs comments.

Well zzzzzzzz – please put your money where your mouth is and buy one of these vehicles.

It isn’t that I’m being unfair – I tell pushi to buy a used cheap ev all the time, but he never will.

@DW- how do you decarbonize the economy using a product made from fracked methane (to even get close to commercial viability) producing 5kg of CO2 for every 1kg of H2?

Give it up, H2 as an energy carrier, had it’s best chance for viability in the 80s but big oil kept it down, and now its big oil trying to forestall the EV inevitability by touting H2 to the uninformed and wilfully ignorant.

Daniel Williams – quote: “The point missed by many commenters both here and elsewhere is a) Hydrogen cars are only starting to be mass-produced as the technology is very new – unlike lithium which has been around for 27 years. As soon as 100,000 cars a produced per year, the price will be equal to be a conventional car.” ————- But electric cars with lithium based batteries are also only just starting to become mass produced – the basic technologies of both have been around a long time. The problem with fuel cell cars is only partly the lack of mass production – there are inherent problems with using hydrogen as a vehicle fuel, both in terms of it’s use and production. The problem with BEVs has up until now been the cost of battery – but that has fallen rapidly, and is expected to fall further. The common mistake is to think of hydrogen as “a source of energy”. It isn’t, any more than a battery is. Both are best seen as a means of STORING energy, not as sources in their own right. In both cases the energy has to come from a true source, then used to… Read more »

Make a Nexo with dual 100Kw motors, a 75-80Kwh battery, sell it for 45-50kUS$ and you will have a real winner

Seems like a legitimate choice compared to a Tesla Model X 100D. You save about $40,000 up front which would pay for $100 fueling bills 400 times or about once a week over a decade.