When
Toyota made clear its aim to release a hydrogen-powered fuel cell auto to the public in 2015 for $50,000, we
asked the simple question of whether you'd buy that car for that much. The overwhelming answer was "heck no!"
Hyundai-Kia is glad to hear it, and is taking this time to trump up its cheaper fuel cell technology. General Manager Byung Ki Ahn explains that his company's tech does not require an onboard compressor and contains less platinum in the catalysts than Toyota's, in theory meaning reduced cost and complexity. But, will that come at the expense of efficiency? Just what will Hyundai's alternative cost? And, most importantly, will its first fuel cell car look as good as good as the Genesis coupe, or will it just be the boring Borrego prototype above? These questions could be answered as soon as 2012, when the company hopes to get the first early models into the willing driveways of consumers.
posted June 8th 2010 4:12AM
i really hope car manufacturers start pushing hydrogen fuel cells more and get over the current hybrid/all-electric nonsense
of course that would also require suppliers to step up creating a viable infrastructure
@mrqs "suppliers to step up creating a viable infrastructure"
Are you delusional? The hydrogen push and lobby by big oil in DC is not targeting suppliers, but our very own tax dollars instead. We will have to pay for an infrastructure in the trillions of dollars so that BP, Shell and Exxon can continue to profit (yes they are the beneficiaries of a hydrogen). Further more, where as Electric cars can be zero emissions, FCVs almost never are. Hydrogen is produced by either:
A) The energy intensive process of electrolysis, which would require lots more electricity from a Coal plant than an EV would.
B) Hydrocarbon reformation (steam reformation of natural gas) which simply displaces emissions from the tail pipe to the reformation plant. This is the cheapest and most effective mean to produce hydrogen and it is the process on which the oil industry is betting its future.
It is true that batteries add weight and it is true that they take longer to charge, but that doesn't mean EVs aren't viable. Battery technology is evolving fast. The future of BEVs could be bright and clean, all it needs is a chance.
@Tohe "Further more, where as Electric cars can be zero emissions, FCVs almost never are. Hydrogen is produced by either:
A) The energy intensive process of electrolysis, which would require lots more electricity from a Coal plant than an EV would."
you didn't feel like contradicting yourself when you wrote that?
both need electricity, which can be made by emission free means
@mrqs There is no irony when you consider my full statement, in part B I said:
"B) Hydrocarbon reformation (steam reformation of natural gas) which simply displaces emissions from the tail pipe to the reformation plant. This is the cheapest and most effective mean to produce hydrogen and it is the process on which the oil industry is betting its future."
Today almost all hydrogen comes from hydrocarbons reformation. There are only a handful electrolysis stations and they are for show. They are a feel good facade to what is a dirty process over all. In reality, wind turbines and solar panels cannot sustain the demands of the energy intensive process of electrolysis, and that is why H2 is almost NEVER emissions free.
@Tohe
wind turbines and solar panels couldn't meet the demands of a high number of all-electric cars either; not in their current form (unless you expect every ev owner to also invest in their own power generator)
but that's the whole point of both of these approaches - separating the ecologically problematic energy generation from cars
@Tohe EV's are not viable, at least in their current form. Neither are hydrogen fuel cells IN THEIR CURRENT FORM but not for the reasons you mentioned.
Platinum is currently the popular catalyst to use in these vehicles. If you're not sure why that's important, google it. The important difference is that while batteries will continue to use precious metals (which is a very LIMITED resource!!!), research in alternative catalysts have led to much cheaper, more abundant, and more efficient catalysts to use in these hydrogen cars. Once we stop using precious metals, I'm all for it.
But, baby steps. This is an important one.
btw, for anyone that hasn't seen it yet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffRagsjSpkE
@mrqs you're right buddy. people forget quickly..
I wonder why I keep seeing "KIA" as "Killed In Action." It makes me not want anything to do with these cars...
@CaryHiroyuki Tagawa
Maybe cause of all these "killed in action" with toyotas
@boodiespost
That has nothing to do with it. I was reminded of this years before people embraced Toyota Kamikaze.
Why does anyone freaking care?!? You've still got to produce hydrogen, and that takes electricity. How do we make electricity? Fossil fuels!
Show me improvements in power plant efficiency and I'll be impressed, but increasingly obfuscated ways of pretending we're not producing harmful waste are just counterproductive.
@thinmac
1) power plants are a bit more efficient than your average car's ice
2) moving the fossil fuel "problem" from the car to the power plants allows for an easier transition once we have (more/better) viable alternatives
@thinmac
power stations are getting far more efficient, and that's not including alternative fuel sources (wind, tidal, nuclear, etc)
a single power station producing electricity for 10000 people would probably produce less co2 than the same 10000 driving cars about.
@mrqs
You make a valid point. Using power plants instead of 4 stroke internal combustion engines is an incremental improvement. My issue is that what this technology, like gasoline electric hybrid technology, is more effective at making it's users feel good about themselves than it is at actually addressing the issue of environmental damage. What Toyota or Hyundai or whoever is selling is not environmentalism, it's environmental self-affermation.
We need to make serious technological leaps, and even more serious personal sacrifices in our daily lives to fix the damage we continue to do to our planet. Fancy half-measures like hydrogen cars make us feel better about ourselves, but don't make the situation any better at all.
@thinmac
i agree about the "feel-good" aspect of hybrids (a normal diesel can be as efficient as your average hybrid)
i also agree that at the moment, hydrogen would fall in to the same category, but imo my second point addresses that - it's not the solution, but it enables it
@Wiggy Fuzz If you are worried about co2 the meat production industry is the leading cause of it. So feel free to drive an SUV as long as you don't go to a fast food drive through.
Show me a car that runs on dashed hopes and broken dreams. Then I'll be impressed.
@Zhukov
the batmobile :)
have you ever seen batman fill his up at the local gas pump?
All electric, seriously why bother putting a power plant in your car. A gas engine only uses a fraction of the energy that is produced. An electric engine uses almost 100% of the energy from a battery to power the car. Make the energy production separate from the car that way it can change over time and we will not be stuck with a bunch of outdated full cell cars. The solar panels on the moon could power electric cars. You can't say the same about fuel cell. They are investing in the wrong tech.
@rhollon
1) an all-electric car needs a huge amount of batteries, which add a lot more weight, which decreases efficiency, not to mention drivability and all that lot
2) people will not go from 2 minute pit stops to an hour's (+) wait to recharge their cars; that is not progress, that's regress, and the general public will never accept it
and if changing the whole battery array is your solution, then what's the difference in supplying hydrogen and supplying batteries? the ecologically problematic power generation is separated from the car in both cases
@mrqs
Battery recharging for cars are already at 30 minutes now. There was an article about a company on this website that showcased it. I'm too lazy to look for it, so hit the google.
The problem with hydrogen is that it takes electricity to make it, so why even convert electricity to another fuel source, why not be more efficient and just use the electricity AS a fuel source.
The other problem with hydrogen: It will continue to perpetuate the centralized control of automobile energy, and we are once again, at the whim of the power company oligarchs. There are already ways for people to generate electricity themselves. Once the solar industry gets a bit more mature, many of us will be making our own "fuel". Sure, we will need to hit the "recharge station" every now and then but at least we can keep the Shell/Chevron/BP/Exxon charging stations honest. If we went hydrogen, it would be business as usual... large multinational corporation makes huge profits gouging their customers and dodging their tax responsibilities by moving to the "pick-your-island-here".
@Bhima
30 minutes is still at least 25 minutes too long to be viable for replacing ice vehicles in any meaningful scale
good point on the last paragraph tho'
@mrqs
Your argumentation is pure BS,especially if you look at all-electric cars that are already in production like the Telsa, which weighs 2,723 lb, less than most cars on US roads today.
As far as pitstops are concerned, unless you work for BP, you should be happy to charge your car in your own garage overnight instead of waisting time lining up at fuel stations.
How can you compare hydrogen supply vs battery supply? It doesn't make any sense! A battery will last more than 10 years, which if often as long as the life of your car (especially if it's a Kia) whereas you'll consume electricity to produce Hydrogen every time your tank is empty.
@calagan by paragraph:
1) the tesla is hardly comparable to a family sedan - why don't you compare it to the lotus elise, which it most resembles? that nearly halves the tesla's weight
2) most people like to use their cars for longer trips than to go to work or the store on occasion
3) you totally missed the context of that comparison
i was referring to if the recharging problem would be "fixed" by changing your empty battery to a full one at a service station
@mrqs Reading your comments, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Battery powered EVs are a hands down better solution than HFCs.
HFCs are much less efficient - you have to compress and cool hydrogen to achieve anything close to a reasonable volumetric energy density. This consumes a HUGE amount of energy and is incredibly dangerous. Making hydrogen from electricity is also very inefficient and wasteful - making it from natural gas is much more practical, but isn't the point to get away from fossil fuels? Batteries are nearly 90% efficient and HFCs will never, ever, come anywhere close to that.
As per size and weight, with HFCs, you need some beefy cylinders to handle safely storing the gas at such high pressures (3000 psi+). You then need the fuel cell in the car, taking up more space and adding more weight. Lithium based cells OTOH, are extremely light and extremely energy dense - for the amount of weight you'd need to implement an HFC vehicle, you could have a battery EV with much greater range and higher efficiency, all at a lower cost.
The only advantage to HFCs are faster refueling times. Don't kid yourself and think its a fast process though - it will still take longer than filling up an ICE vehicle today. This advantage is quickly dwindling as Li-Po batteries have come a long way in the past couple years, and it's expected these cells will eventually be able to be charged in a matter of minutes. The real limitation is not the charge rate of the battery cells - its the capacity of our electrical grid to handle sourcing these currents. This is also a problem with electrical hydrogen though (and thus local hydrogen production), and will require some serious investment in nuclear power if we ever expect to all use EVs one day.
So please, explain why anyone would want to add all of the complexity and danger of a HFC to their daily driver? No, HFCs are just a marketing scam to make the engineering challenged environmentalist types happy and buy cars from these guys. Batteries are just maturing much faster, making HFCs less and less promising. Face it - HFCs may be fun and exciting, but they are an engineering dead end and they'll never be in common [automotive] use.
@limaxray reply below
@mrqs
You are assuming people still follow the same refueling method with BEVs. With a BEV charging takes 30 seconds. Why? Because like any electronic device, plug it in and go do other stuff. You don't stand around at a station waiting for it to charge. And people can use it now with existing sockets at home or at work.
With hydrogen you have to wait for the non-existent charging stations to be built costing hundreds of billions of dollars.
Besides from 30 minute chargers, battery swapping (2 minute swap, faster than even refueling) and just plain sticking with EREVs can solve the issue for long range travelers, with minimal cost.
Of course hyundai can offer a better price...sa,e reason why north american cars are cheaper. They are junk.
@Matt314 Really now? That's actually not the case anymore. You probably should read up on the new stuff, this isn't the 90s or the early 2000s.
@Eric2203 In fact i've done alot of research on the subject and I can tell you from experience that the Japanese make cars that a vastly superior. Its not a secret why, they simply have stronger quality control. Its not that american companies aren't capable of doing the same, they simply don't because it costs alot more money. Many honda and toyota cars are made in NA now (any car with a VIN not starting with J is not made in japan) and these are not up to par with the Japanese made equivalent.
I can't say i've ever owned a hyundai, but they use to be the worst of the worst. If they are better now or not I don't particularly care because their models do not interest me. They are "wanna be" of other company's vehicles and i find to be a big turn off.
My Japanese made IS250 has 250000km on it and I haven't had a single problem with it.
@Matt314
hyundai is south-korean, not japanese...
@Matt314
hyundai is south-korean, not japanese...
Hell Yes.
@limaxray "So please, explain why anyone would want to add all of the complexity and danger of a HFC to their daily driver?"
danger?? and you claim i'm a victim of a marketing scam? get with the times
and where's this complexity you speak of? the only difference from the consumer's point of view to the current situation is that you have to turn that handle when refuelling...
you say that i've no idea what i'm talking about, but go on talking about how a heavy hydrogen tank would weigh more than a stack of batteries?
you'll notice the honda fcx clarity, with its aluminium and carbon fibre resin tank, weighs a rather reasonable 1600 kg - quite on par with similarly sized ice cars
you seem quite confident in your opinions, what with the insults and all, but you can't really defend all-electric cars' weight issues and expect to be taken seriously
hfc has emerged quite rapidly as a viable technology and it continues to evolve at a rapid pace, whereas batteries haven't seen much improvement since li-ion was introduced ages ago
of course hfc's are less efficient - generating electricity will always be most efficient in big power plants, but the hfc+electric engine combo is still a lot more efficient than an ice (like 3 times as efficient) and while i agree that they'll likely never reach the efficiency of a battery solution, saying "never ever come anywhere close to" is a bit of a stretch, considering the fcx clarity for instance operates at around 60% energy efficiency (compared to ~90% of what you'd see from batteries)
and that "one advantage" you mention (faster refuelling) is quite enough to make them much more appealing to the general public than all-electric vehicles
@mrqs
damn you engadget comment system!
@mrqs
You are wrong, Batteries are a proven technology and have seen many advances. Lithium Air is one such advancement that promises 10 times the energy density of current lithium solutions. Or just take a look at the Nissan LEAF, did you know that they use magnesium in their chemistry to improve range and stability? And they have also developed a second generation of their battery which improves the range by 20% (that will be introduced on the LEAF2). I believe that batteries will eventually evolve into ultra capacitors. To me hydrogen is a scam being pushed by the oil lobby and I'm definitely not interested in either the mechanics of the technology or in making dirty rich guys any richer.
@Tohe
moving electricity through the grid and into a battery actually wastes an awful lot of electricity... resistance is futile! :p
techs in infancy.. who knows (not us that's for sure) what breakthroughs may occur along the way.
@MrJimlad
And using that electricity to make hydrogen which needs to be compressed for the car wastes EVEN MORE.
@ "we asked the simple question of whether you'd buy that car for that much. The overwhelming answer was "heck no!" "
By that poll, the Camry and Accord would be market flops. Most people in here would not buy either of those cars, or the Prius.
Look back at how the people here bash the Prius, yet it's doing well in sales. Enthusiasts make a tiny park of the buying public.