Finally: Hyundai To Market Hydrogen Car Next Year

[alancw3]

Interesting. I suspect that California will be the first rollout. i wonder if hyundai dealers will be installing hydrogen fill stations to add infrastructure to support hydrogen. i won't be surprised to see other manufacturers offer hydrogen cars too.


http://news.yahoo.com/hyundai-market-hydrogen-vehicle-next-215350545--finance.html

[CAAD]

This is what we need. Batteries are not the future. Hydrogen you just fill and go. I really hope this technology takes off.

[alancw3]

i agree. unfortunately there are other factors involved such as politics, country alliances and big business. i wonder how many politicans get contributions from the big oil companies? i don't see that going away anytime soon. it's just ashame it wasn't an american auto maker that made this announcement. ford and gm have both gone the path of least resistance and most profitability. anyway kudos to hyundai!

[dgauthier]

Something that's glossed over in the discussions of hydrogen fuel cells is that it takes energy (using conventional sources) to create the hydrogen using electrolysis. The energy produced when the fuel cell turns the hydrogen back into water is less than the energy used to create the hydrogen. So hydrogen is still a wasteful, polluting fuel source -- the pollution just happens somewhere else.

[dancinkozmo]

Something that's glossed over in the discussions of hydrogen fuel cells is that it takes energy (using conventional sources) to create the hydrogen using electrolysis. The energy produced when the fuel cell turns the hydrogen back into water is less than the energy used to create the hydrogen. So hydrogen is still a wasteful, polluting fuel source -- the pollution just happens somewhere else.

can H2 reserves not be created over time using wind and solar ??

[R2D2]

can H2 reserves not be created over time using wind and solar ??

And that is the biggest need for improvement in battery technology. Storing wind and solar generated power.

[dancinkozmo]

And that is the biggest need for improvement in battery technology. Storing wind and solar generated power.

but you wouldnt need to store the electricity for the most part, it would be used to directly crack the water, then store the H2

[MattTuck]

i agree. unfortunately there are other factors involved such as politics, country alliances and big business. i wonder how many politicans get contributions from the big oil companies? i don't see that going away anytime soon. it's just ashame it wasn't an american auto maker that made this announcement. ford and gm have both gone the path of least resistance and most profitability. anyway kudos to hyundai!

The biggest impediment to innovation today is the cycle of monied interests influencing regulations to preserve their ability to generate profits and limit competition, which just provides more money to influence regulations.


As to hydrogen, yes. You can make it at scale using any source (fossil fuels, wind, solar, etc.) but you can also make it locally assuming you have water and a solar cell with access to sunlight. It isn't 100% efficient, but if you make it using renewable sources, it is better with regards to climate change. And in fact, it is probably better to produce hydrogen via non-dispatchable sources of energy (like wind and solar) that make really crappy baseload generation capacity (since you can't count on them to align with when people actually need electricity).

The technology has the potential to be something that is produced at your single family house. You can guess how happy ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, etc. are about that prospect.

[alancw3]

The biggest impediment to innovation today is the cycle of monied interests influencing regulations to preserve their ability to generate profits and limit competition, which just provides more money to influence regulations.


As to hydrogen, yes. You can make it at scale using any source (fossil fuels, wind, solar, etc.) but you can also make it locally assuming you have water and a solar cell with access to sunlight. It isn't 100% efficient, but if you make it using renewable sources, it is better with regards to climate change. And in fact, it is probably better to produce hydrogen via non-dispatchable sources of energy (like wind and solar) that make really crappy baseload generation capacity (since you can't count on them to align with when people actually need electricity).

The technology has the potential to be something that is produced at your single family house. You can guess how happy ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, etc. are about that prospect.

+1 could not have said it better. i guess i am a pessimst because i don't think it will happen. let's face it the big companies have much more money to counter anything positive. i guess what i don't understand is that i would think that the exxon/mobils of the world could be the beneficaries of hydrogen as they have the assets to provide the infrasturture. think about all the exxon/mobil stations out there that could offer a hydrogen fillup!

[Ahneida Ride]

Honda already offers a Natural Gas car.

I've driven it ..... rather nice ...

10 frn to fill up..... goes around 350 miles on a tank.

[alancw3]

Honda already offers a Natural Gas car.

I've driven it ..... rather nice ...

10 frn to fill up..... goes around 350 miles on a tank.

next best solution ihmo!

[jmoore]

If something like this is profitable, you can bet ExxonMobil will jump in with their full weight to crush any small fry's. Just because they are an oil company doesn't mean they are only oil.

Pioneers get slaughtered. Settlers get fat.

[Ahneida Ride]

I've driven the Honda CNG ..

It's nice... and peppy for most of up.

Just make sure you have a filling station close you your home.

[oldpotatoe]

Interesting. I suspect that California will be the first rollout. i wonder if hyundai dealers will be installing hydrogen fill stations to add infrastructure to support hydrogen. i won't be surprised to see other manufacturers offer hydrogen cars too.


http://news.yahoo.com/hyundai-market-hydrogen-vehicle-next-215350545--finance.html

The car may be 'zero emissions', but producing hydrogen...isn't

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production

and, " a book by Joseph J. Romm, published in 2004 by Island Press and updated in 2005. Romm says that directly burning fossil fuels generates less CO2 than hydrogen production."

[cmg]

hydrogen cars are to meet emissions guidelines. "Hydrogen cars likely will help automakers meet new goals from eight key states to put more zero-emissions cars on the road." It's not about improving the enviroment. automakers will probably only build/lease enough cars to meet the guidelines spread out over the next 12 years. the worst(for everybody but the comsumer) thing that could happen would be for automobiles to be come less petrol dependent.

[cachagua]

Batteries are not the future.

Can you say more? What don't you like about them?

[alancw3]

today, wednesday hyundai is to announce details about the car or should i say suv at the los angeles auto show. whatever it will be interesting. i am sure the first rollout will be in california and then possibly nyc.

[Chance]

To what end is this good? To reduce pollution? Because if that's the goal there are far cheaper ways to accomplish the same?

[norcalbiker]

It's funny you see a lot of CNG, Hybrid, Hydrogen and all that in Berkeley and they don't even like George Bush. :fight: :D

[enr1co]

...Batteries are not the future. Hydrogen you just fill and go...

I'll still take a Tesla Model S :)

[R2D2]

but you wouldnt need to store the electricity for the most part, it would be used to directly crack the water, then store the H2

I was thinking of electricity in general.
You can make hydrogen (for fuel cells) or supply electric infrastructure (for non fuel cell devices).

[zap]

Honda already offers a Natural Gas car.

I've driven it ..... rather nice ...

10 frn to fill up..... goes around 350 miles on a tank.

I was interested in the Civic NG. Unfortunately, one station in a 15 mile radius from casa zap…….a county government owned facility.

No thanks.

[Mark McM]

Can you say more? What don't you like about them?

I also agree that batteries are a dead end for vehicle energy storage. As compared to any other common energy source (petroleum, hydrogen, natural gas, etc.), batteries have a much lower energy density and a much larger storage media cost. In addition, it takes much longer recharge a battery than to refill a tank; for example, if you were to drive across the country, a liquid fueled vehicle would spend only minutes a day refilling the tank, whereas a battery vehicle would spend more time recharging than it would actually driving.

For that last 50 years we've heard that the big breakthrough in battery technology to make them practical for vehicles is just around the corner. Well, it hasn't happened yet, and there's no reason to think it will happen anytime soon.

[csm]

I'm looking forward to hyundai's entry back in the world rally championship next season!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[cachagua]

The recharging-time problem has been eliminated, but given the other two limitations you mentioned, that's more or less moot. . . I can't even get my phone to stay charged reliably!

[alancw3]

los angeles first with a lease vechicle:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/hydrogen-cars-could-headed-showroom-near-211235745--finance.html

[Chance]

I also agree that batteries are a dead end for vehicle energy storage. As compared to any other common energy source (petroleum, hydrogen, natural gas, etc.), batteries have a much lower energy density and a much larger storage media cost. In addition, it takes much longer recharge a battery than to refill a tank; for example, if you were to drive across the country, a liquid fueled vehicle would spend only minutes a day refilling the tank, whereas a battery vehicle would spend more time recharging than it would actually driving.

For that last 50 years we've heard that the big breakthrough in battery technology to make them practical for vehicles is just around the corner. Well, it hasn't happened yet, and there's no reason to think it will happen anytime soon.

If evaluated on basis that one vehicle must do it all then this is correct. However, a very large percentage of miles are driven fairly close to home where an electric car with double the range of the best today could recharge overnight. Cost is still a factor, but there are battery technologies that could double vehicle range in the near future (as in 50 years isn't that long). And if we can improve battery technology as much in the next 50 years as in the last 50, then most cars could run the majority of miles off them. In reality if cost wasn't the issue they could do it today.

Having stated that, my personal preference remains to maximize bang for the buck with simpler hybrids like the one Honda just introduced. Besides, whether a car runs on gasoline, diesel, natural gas, or hydrogen, it can become more efficient when some minimum amount of battery is used for regeneration and maximum acceleration.

[Mark McM]

If evaluated on basis that one vehicle must do it all then this is correct. However, a very large percentage of miles are driven fairly close to home where an electric car with double the range of the best today could recharge overnight. Cost is still a factor, but there are battery technologies that could double vehicle range in the near future (as in 50 years isn't that long). And if we can improve battery technology as much in the next 50 years as in the last 50, then most cars could run the majority of miles off them. In reality if cost wasn't the issue they could do it today.

I agree most driving trips are short, and could easily be served by current battery powered cars. But most people who own cars don't want to have to own a second vehicle for long trips.

Also, while battery powered cars might be able to be sufficiently recharged on a nightly basis, doing so requires additional infrastructure that adds to operating cost, and may not be a practical option for many people. How do you recharge it if you live in an apartment complex? Or if you live in a city, and all you have is on street parking?

By the way, I believe that electric cars are definitely the way of the future. I just don't think they will be battery powered.

[Chance]

I also agree that batteries are a dead end for vehicle energy storage. As compared to any other common energy source (petroleum, hydrogen, natural gas, etc.), batteries have a much lower energy density and a much larger storage media cost. In addition, it takes much longer recharge a battery than to refill a tank; for example, if you were to drive across the country, a liquid fueled vehicle would spend only minutes a day refilling the tank, whereas a battery vehicle would spend more time recharging than it would actually driving.

For that last 50 years we've heard that the big breakthrough in battery technology to make them practical for vehicles is just around the corner. Well, it hasn't happened yet, and there's no reason to think it will happen anytime soon.

Mark, the highlighted part is what got me thinking about lack of progress eveyone always mentions when it comes to batteries.

Just saying that we shouldn’t dismiss great advances made since the oil crisis of the 70s when interest in electric cars resurfaced after many decades of inactivity -- for the most part dead.

In the 70s early experimental electric cars using the latest lead-acid batteries of that time could only travel 10 to 20 miles (real traffic miles) and most of them had a top speed of approximately 30 to 40 MPH or else they would go through battery range in short order. And those were cars loaded with 30 to 50 percent of their total mass made up by batteries. In roughly 40 years we’ve made great advances (except for controlling costs) that make those early performance numbers seem silly by comparison. Latest Tesla confirm viability when they are not on fire.

I’m not necessarily an electric car fan, but would like to see them succeed nonetheless. There are almost perfect for city cars. And if we can charge a phone in an hour or so, there is no reason to think that eventually car batteries may not do the same (granted it’s going to take a lot of juice). So if we drove 4 to 5 hours in the morning and charged up during lunch/break, drove another 4 to 5 hours and charged up again during dinner/break, and then drove another 4 hours before stopping for the night, an electric car with a usable range of only 250 to 300 miles may work just fine for even the occasional long cross-country trip.

Except for driving battery costs down, we are really not that far from the success engineering students from the 70s envisioned. I can just imagine what they would have thought of a Tesla or even a Nissan.

[Mark McM]

Mark, the highlighted part is what got me thinking about lack of progress eveyone always mentions when it comes to batteries.

Just saying that we shouldn’t dismiss great advances made since the oil crisis of the 70s when interest in electric cars resurfaced after many decades of inactivity -- for the most part dead.

In the 70s early experimental electric cars using the latest lead-acid batteries of that time could only travel 10 to 20 miles (real traffic miles) and most of them had a top speed of approximately 30 to 40 MPH or else they would go through battery range in short order. And those were cars loaded with 30 to 50 percent of their total mass made up by batteries. In roughly 40 years we’ve made great advances (except for controlling costs) that make those early performance numbers seem silly by comparison. Latest Tesla confirm viability when they are not on fire.

While there have been advances in batteries, basic physical laws will prevent them from ever rivaling today's common vehicle fuels for cost or energy density. If you take a look at Wikipedia page on Energy Density (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density), you can see that the energy density of today's lithium ion batteries are close to 2 orders less than gasoline by mass (gasoline has about 80 times more energy by mass). Even (burning) wood has about 20 times more energy by mass than a lithium ion battery. It the rate that battery energy density has improved in the last 50 years, it will take batteries a few hundred years to catch up with fossil fuels.

I’m not necessarily an electric car fan, but would like to see them succeed nonetheless. There are almost perfect for city cars. And if we can charge a phone in an hour or so, there is no reason to think that eventually car batteries may not do the same (granted it’s going to take a lot of juice). So if we drove 4 to 5 hours in the morning and charged up during lunch/break, drove another 4 to 5 hours and charged up again during dinner/break, and then drove another 4 hours before stopping for the night, an electric car with a usable range of only 250 to 300 miles may work just fine for even the occasional long cross-country trip.

This vision requires building very powerful recharging systems at many, many locations, and would require building an infrastructure larger than the present gasoline based infrastructure. I don't see this happening anytime soon.

[Chance]

While there have been advances in batteries, basic physical laws will prevent them from ever rivaling today's common vehicle fuels for cost or energy density. If you take a look at Wikipedia page on Energy Density (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density), you can see that the energy density of today's lithium ion batteries are close to 2 orders less than gasoline by mass (gasoline has about 80 times more energy by mass). Even (burning) wood has about 20 times more energy by mass than a lithium ion battery. It the rate that battery energy density has improved in the last 50 years, it will take batteries a few hundred years to catch up with fossil fuels.



This vision requires building very powerful recharging systems at many, many locations, and would require building an infrastructure larger than the present gasoline based infrastructure. I don't see this happening anytime soon.

Isn't the 80 times more energy density irrelevant in large part? It may be correct and somewhat immaterial at same time. If a Tesla can travel 200 miles no one would ever design a car with a gasoline tank capable of traveling 16,000 miles between fill ups. There is no need. Or a Nissan Leaf that can go 4,000 miles between “fill ups”. At some point the 80-times better isn’t significant because less will be good enough to get the job done. Granted we are not there yet but at some point it will become less important.




By the way, your concern about recharging is of greater concern to me. There are ways around that too but will take more thought and acceptance from the public. Actually, there are various simple solutions for the occasional long cross-country trip. And as long as the majority of all charging is done at night there isn’t the need to upgrade the infrastructure that greatly. That’s why in my opinion increasing range so that very few people will need to charge during the day is so important. We can’t have everyone plugging in at lunch time or immediately after work. Vehicle range has to be sufficient so that owners will feel comfortable waiting until nightime to recharge. That's when the existing grid can handle it best with less upgrades.

In my case we would use less electricity to recharge an electric car than we do to air condition our house in summer. So if our area's grid can handle peak summer AC loads it should be able to recharge most private cars at night when our AC load is very low by comparison.

[oldpotatoe]

"In my case we would use less electricity to recharge an electric car than we do to air condition our house in summer. So if our area's grid can handle peak summer AC loads it should be able to recharge most private cars at night when our AC load is very low by comparison."

Really? Where do ya suppose all this electricity is going to come from, to charge hundreds of millions of cars?

I guess cold fusion will be a reality by then but with today's or even in 20 years time, electric cars aren't going to happen in any large scale.

Not until fossil fuel is getting scarce, until then, gas/diesel powered transport will be in the majority.

[Black Dog]

Honda already offers a Natural Gas car.

I've driven it ..... rather nice ...

10 frn to fill up..... goes around 350 miles on a tank.

Natureal Gas still produces CO2 and fraking to get the gas is not nice to the environment at all.

[Chance]

"In my case we would use less electricity to recharge an electric car than we do to air condition our house in summer. So if our area's grid can handle peak summer AC loads it should be able to recharge most private cars at night when our AC load is very low by comparison."

Really? Where do ya suppose all this electricity is going to come from, to charge hundreds of millions of cars?

I guess cold fusion will be a reality by then but with today's or even in 20 years time, electric cars aren't going to happen in any large scale.

Not until fossil fuel is getting scarce, until then, gas/diesel powered transport will be in the majority.

Did my post not imply "IN MY AREA" twice? MY AREA doesn't have "hundreds of millions of cars".

We spend about $300 in peak summer to air condition, with a large part of that being spent between 12:00 and 8:00 PM. Based on how many miles we drive on average, we'd probably spend less than $150 per month for additional electricity to recharge a car. That means to me that if recharged at night the demand would be approximately the same as when we run our AC in July and August during the mid afternoon hours.

In the south where AC loads dominate electricity peak demand the existing grid isn't that far off from being able to carry the load for many households. For the rest of you who live in places like Colorado where air conditioning may not be a significant load your grid may need a lot of upgrades. Or maybe electric cars aren't for you guys for other reasons as well -- like electric cars may not do well in mountains. The bottom line is that not everyone has to convert to one type of fuel, right? There is room for some to drive electric, others diesel, others gasoline, and or natural gas. There might even be room for hydrogen.:rolleyes:

[oldpotatoe]

Did my post not imply "IN MY AREA" twice? MY AREA doesn't have "hundreds of millions of cars".

We spend about $300 in peak summer to air condition, with a large part of that being spent between 12:00 and 8:00 PM. Based on how many miles we drive on average, we'd probably spend less than $150 per month for additional electricity to recharge a car. That means to me that if recharged at night the demand would be approximately the same as when we run our AC in July and August during the mid afternoon hours.

In the south where AC loads dominate electricity peak demand the existing grid isn't that far off from being able to carry the load for many households. For the rest of you who live in places like Colorado where air conditioning may not be a significant load your grid may need a lot of upgrades. Or maybe electric cars aren't for you guys for other reasons as well -- like electric cars may not do well in mountains. The bottom line is that not everyone has to convert to one type of fuel, right? There is room for some to drive electric, others diesel, others gasoline, and or natural gas. There might even be room for hydrogen.:rolleyes:

Why would it be abundant 'in your area' and not elsewhere?

All I'm saying is battery powered cars are not the 'final' answer, nor is hydrogen, where it takes a lot of energy to make, hydrogen. Fossil fuel is cheap, it will stay the 'fuel' of choice for a long time. Battery powered cars are a novelty, and will remain so for a while, IMHO.

[Chance]

Why would it be abundant 'in your area' and not elsewhere?


Because the electricity grid in any given area is limited by peak demand, and our peak is middle of afternoon at hottest part of summer due to air conditioning. Our peaks can be quite high on 105 F days. The grid is designed to handle peak loads like that. At night when AC loads aren't that high our grid has excess capacity.

Winter may actually be a greater issue but it's easy and cost effective to convert older homes from electric heat to natural gas.

Don't know if other areas may be similar, or have similar available windows of excess capacity. Besides, not saying some upgrades aren't needed. Just that it's not like building the infrastructure from the ground up.

[Chance]

All I'm saying is battery powered cars are not the 'final' answer, nor is hydrogen, where it takes a lot of energy to make, hydrogen. Fossil fuel is cheap, it will stay the 'fuel' of choice for a long time. Battery powered cars are a novelty, and will remain so for a while, IMHO.

Agree fossil fuel will dominate for my lifetime. Hopefully that's a long time. We'd have to define what "final" means, because it's not likely fossil fuels in my opinion.

[oldpotatoe]

Agree fossil fuel will dominate for my lifetime. Hopefully that's a long time. We'd have to define what "final" means, because it's not likely fossil fuels in my opinion.

WEll, I think it's something 'out of the box', type thinking(dislike that term, sorry).

Like internet connectivity devices..now scads of different ones...'maybe' an alternative way to live, hence where to live/work, hence a different need or desire to get from one place to another.

THX 1138 or Episode 6 of StarWars...or Star Trek..I donno.