Hyundai reveals electric-hydrogen hybrid concept car with a retro design

Mptoyer

Posts: 6   +7
How is it the future? Maybe fuel cells have a good future, but currently 96% of hydrogen is made from fossil fuels, only 3% is green. As a pure fuel hydrogen is crap, with half the energy density of Li Ion battery. Toyota's ICE burning hydrogen are pretty poor and a waste of effort. Fuel cells have 2x the energy density, but we need clean green source of hydrogen in the first place. Luckily Australian company has had massive breakthrough in catalyst technology for making green hydrogen much cheaper and is readily for commercial trials.

Hydrogen's biggest use will be in manufacturing enabling us to make much cleaner steel, cement etc.
I think you mean 96% hydrogen is made using fossil fuels not from fossil fuels.

As far as fuel cells go, more research will be needed to improve them, just like evs have had.

Li-ion is an old technology and quite dangerous in the event of a crash. Solid state batteries should improve this.

Once the grid is massively decarbonised, hydrogen can be made using renewable energy.
Thankfully a lot of ng gas turbines can be converted to run on hydrogen.

 

scavengerspc

Posts: 2,653   +2,871
TechSpot Elite
As this goes on, I just wanted to mention it's possible that we will be conversing with folks that think this is disgusting:

56464frd-1392126197.jpg



But also think this is just fine... Even beautiful :laughing::

3ZYNSCHI4VH2JM5O7ENDK5EHPE.jpg
 

terzaerian

Posts: 1,373   +1,974
I'm not trying to sound cool. I never try to sound cool. They are smokers.

But I will say, still using ICE makes you sound like this:

sad-man-wearing-a-propeller-beanie-picture-id187154063
That's the acronym. Call them gas cars or internal combustion engines, "smokers" just makes you sound like a tool. Especially when basically all our critical infrastructure is still "smokers".
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 2,653   +2,871
TechSpot Elite
That's the acronym. Call them gas cars or internal combustion engines, "smokers" just makes you sound like a tool. Especially when basically all our critical infrastructure is still "smokers".
Well that's odd. There are very few nerd indicators more accurate than a bunch of acronyms.

Are you sure you aren't standing behind your smoke pump and not driving it? :D
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 7,828   +6,808
Just watch this, forget Forbes for a moment:
Ah, Bob (Area 51) Lazar. I wonder just how much pollution the by-products of his nuclear reactor cause? Interesting video; however, its not like there is not a lot of research going into hydrogen production/storage in the scientific world. His video does not counter the fact that most commercial hydrogen production presently comes from conversion of fossil fuels. The process is more polluting than burning an energy equivalent amount of gasoline. So, forget the storage aspect for a moment, because Bob did not demonstrate anything new.

In any event, if you got to the end of my post, I did mention catalysts, and there's a ton of research going into that, too; it is, IMO, perhaps the most promising avenue for "green hydrogen" production.

Who knows, maybe the "hydride" that Bob was using will eventually become widely available without the risk of going to prison for distributing components for WMD. ;)
No problem brother. My daughters say I have that affect on people. :laughing:
😌🤣
I am woefully ignorant on hydrogen as a transportation fuel compared to some. I did know it is a fossil fuel obviously and achieving wide distribution would be a huge expense.

My hope is, as I said earlier, we can not only streamline the process, but maybe even find ways to reduce the emissions needed to get it viable, such as your link. Look at the advancements we made reducing smokers emission levels.

I also think marketing it properly will be very important. Make the people understand that the vehicles are still EVs. They just have a different way of keeping the battery and electric motor going.

I'm going to dedicate some time and learn more about this.
Maybe this is a good start - https://phys.org/search/?search=electrolysis+hydrogen+catalyst&s=0
The site tends to keep things simple, but if you want to dig deeper, they usually have links back to the research papers on which they base their articles.
 

terzaerian

Posts: 1,373   +1,974
Well that's odd. There are very few nerd indicators more accurate than a bunch of acronyms.

Are you sure you aren't standing behind your smoke pump and not driving it? :D
Evangelism that depends on insulting the people you're trying to convert is very rarely successful. But you do you.
 

Ludak021

Posts: 708   +531
@wiyosaya
Hydrogone is just a simple element, in fact the first element in periodic table of elements. Water is made out of two hydrogen molecules and one Oxygen. There is nothing toxic to nature in those. The "problem" is separating hydrogen in a cost efficient way then storing it. Then fighting off Big Oil that is not going to like loosing trillions annually. :D
As for weapons of mass destruction - even a screw that is used in anything "nuclear" is classified as "weapon material". That's just bureaucracy. Materials he used are not dangerous in any way. He even explains that in the video but he is not permitted (legally) to say what it is. You can see it though, it's behind the car, the huge pipeline setup and whatnot.

As a sidenote regarding nuclear energy: byproducts are clear water vapor released from excess heat and spent nuclear material which is roughly one barrel per decade per modern nuclear power plant. But we refuse to use nuclear power, we want windmills apparently. :)
 

mbrowne5061

Posts: 2,024   +1,220
There's vast amounts of research in that area.

Never is a long time. Eventually, the research will pan out.
Its not about research. Its just plain physics in this case:
Hydrogen-Oxygen: 13.4 MJ/KG
Diesel-Oxygen: 45 MJ/KG
Elemental Lithium: 42MJ/KG
Lithium-Ion Battery: <1MJ/KG

This means that even if there was a way to turn pure lithium, only lithium, into a battery, it would still have less energy per unit-mass than diesel. And thats just not possible, since batteries need three 'parts' - anode, cathode, and electrolyte.

The weight limits of roads are going to dictate what happens here. Big, heavy batteries aren't a problem for passenger vehicles because 1. they just don't get large enough to approach the weight limits, and 2. they aren't expected to hauls tons of cargo. But for trucks, every pound of the limit put towards "not cargo" is a strike against the tech. Only lithium-air batteries have a shot here, but it hasn't panned out because lithium doesn't play nice with any amount of water vapor, and our air is full of water vapors.
 

Inthenstus

Posts: 112   +143
This is beautiful, hydrogen hybrids are the future, not all electric. I’m looking forward to more of these being released!
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 7,828   +6,808
@wiyosaya
Hydrogone is just a simple element, in fact the first element in periodic table of elements. Water is made out of two hydrogen molecules and one Oxygen. There is nothing toxic to nature in those. The "problem" is separating hydrogen in a cost efficient way then storing it. Then fighting off Big Oil that is not going to like loosing trillions annually. :D
As for weapons of mass destruction - even a screw that is used in anything "nuclear" is classified as "weapon material". That's just bureaucracy. Materials he used are not dangerous in any way. He even explains that in the video but he is not permitted (legally) to say what it is. You can see it though, it's behind the car, the huge pipeline setup and whatnot.

As a sidenote regarding nuclear energy: byproducts are clear water vapor released from excess heat and spent nuclear material which is roughly one barrel per decade per modern nuclear power plant. But we refuse to use nuclear power, we want windmills apparently. :)
Hydrogone? :rolleyes: OK. so point out that I'm harping on spelling. :)
Not toxic? Try breathing pure hydrogen. I guarantee that you will not be coming back here after doing so and telling me its not toxic. ;)
Beyond the obvious. I just don't see how waste products from nuclear which have significant half-lives in terms of hundreds thousands of years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-lived_fission_product and which humanity currently knows not what to do with them are somehow better than Wind.

But, never mind, I'm just a dumb-a$$ that has kept tabs on the energy industry and its developments since 1976 or so. To quote Sgt. Schultz from "Hogan's Heros" "I know nothing, I see nothing". 🤣
Its not about research. Its just plain physics in this case:
Hydrogen-Oxygen: 13.4 MJ/KG
Diesel-Oxygen: 45 MJ/KG
Elemental Lithium: 42MJ/KG
Lithium-Ion Battery: <1MJ/KG

This means that even if there was a way to turn pure lithium, only lithium, into a battery, it would still have less energy per unit-mass than diesel. And thats just not possible, since batteries need three 'parts' - anode, cathode, and electrolyte.
Well, then. I suppose you have solved the storage problem and are on your way to the patent office with your super-duper energy storage solution - YES?
The weight limits of roads are going to dictate what happens here. Big, heavy batteries aren't a problem for passenger vehicles because 1. they just don't get large enough to approach the weight limits, and 2. they aren't expected to hauls tons of cargo. But for trucks, every pound of the limit put towards "not cargo" is a strike against the tech. Only lithium-air batteries have a shot here, but it hasn't panned out because lithium doesn't play nice with any amount of water vapor, and our air is full of water vapors.

I just love all of you who seem to think that they only thing the industry knows is Lithium as a primary metal for a battery, and Lithium will stay the primary component for batteries forever. My heart is with you guys. :heart_eyes: BTW - forever is a very long time.

The simple fact of the matter is that it is about research - for example https://graphenemg.com/energy-storage-solutions/aluminum-ion-battery/
which happens to be in a pilot production phase at this point.

Not to mention - https://www.anl.gov/article/qa-coul...future-argonne-chemist-brian-ingram-weighs-in if you care to read it assuming its not too long. And if you actually looked into the research, there's plenty more out there. But why do research. You guys have all the answers. 🤗

But why bother reading since I'm just a dumb-a$$. 🥰 You guys are on the way to the patent office. :rolleyes:

/s somewhat.
 

Ludak021

Posts: 708   +531
Hydrogone? :rolleyes: OK. so point out that I'm harping on spelling. :)
Not toxic? Try breathing pure hydrogen. I guarantee that you will not be coming back here after doing so and telling me its not toxic. ;)
Beyond the obvious. I just don't see how waste products from nuclear which have significant half-lives in terms of hundreds thousands of years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-lived_fission_product and which humanity currently knows not what to do with them are somehow better than Wind.

But, never mind, I'm just a dumb-a$$ that has kept tabs on the energy industry and its developments since 1976 or so. To quote Sgt. Schultz from "Hogan's Heros" "I know nothing, I see nothing". 🤣

Well, then. I suppose you have solved the storage problem and are on your way to the patent office with your super-duper energy storage solution - YES?


I just love all of you who seem to think that they only thing the industry knows is Lithium as a primary metal for a battery, and Lithium will stay the primary component for batteries forever. My heart is with you guys. :heart_eyes: BTW - forever is a very long time.

The simple fact of the matter is that it is about research - for example https://graphenemg.com/energy-storage-solutions/aluminum-ion-battery/
which happens to be in a pilot production phase at this point.

Not to mention - https://www.anl.gov/article/qa-coul...future-argonne-chemist-brian-ingram-weighs-in if you care to read it assuming its not too long. And if you actually looked into the research, there's plenty more out there. But why do research. You guys have all the answers. 🤗

But why bother reading since I'm just a dumb-a$$. 🥰 You guys are on the way to the patent office. :rolleyes:

/s somewhat.
You know best. Hydrogen is poison.
I am a small child watching cartoons. I beg your pardon mister scientist.

PS.

You are being hard just to drive some unknown point home.

PPS. the longer the half life of radioactive material - the less radioactive it is mister scientist.
 

terzaerian

Posts: 1,373   +1,974
You know best. Hydrogen is poison.
I am a small child watching cartoons. I beg your pardon mister scientist.

PS.

You are being hard just to drive some unknown point home.

PPS. the longer the half life of radioactive material - the less radioactive it is mister scientist.
Not to mention, that while we have a pretty good handle at this point how to safely handle and recycle nuclear waste, a good solution eludes us for wind turbines:


Very green.
 

BobHome

Posts: 149   +60
electrics arent even there unless you're well off.

were gonna be on gas until its dying breath, then go through a few years of horror while we catch up with ev's or hydrogen or whatever we bolt together to take gasolines place, cause thats how we handle everything.

because we won't learn, if people actually gave a damn we'd have a choice of truly affordable ev's with a system that would help people migrate to them already, instead what we get are cars that are either not worth swapping to or priced so high to equal an ice car its just a another bragging point for the rich.
We just have to get the (used to be) America's Big Three auto makers to release and use all that tech they bought over the decades to keep us on gasoline.

I remember a (1970's?) magazine article about a guy who coupled a gas generator to an electric motor. They test drove the car around town for a day and then on a track at 80 MPH for an hour--and it used only a quart of gas. And still had a good charge left.

 

scavengerspc

Posts: 2,653   +2,871
TechSpot Elite
Not to mention, that while we have a pretty good handle at this point how to safely handle and recycle nuclear waste, a good solution eludes us for wind turbines:

In addition, do you get as teary eyed with automotive wrecking yards? Turbine blades will never even put a dent in the space already used for those. And the blades don't rust into the ground or leak fluids.

Good for birds too.

"An estimated 140,000 to 500,000 bird deaths occur per year due to turbine collisions, which is substantial, but significantly less than deaths caused by outdoor cats and building collisions."

And of all places, this is from the Audubon society.

Besides, who doesn't like a good Squab? Besides me.
 
Last edited:

TechZel

Posts: 26   +35
Not to mention, that while we have a pretty good handle at this point how to safely handle and recycle nuclear waste, a good solution eludes us for wind turbines:


Very green.
Now work out the volumetric footprint of nuclear waste facilities compared to the volumetric footprint of turbine blades in landfill.

Turbine blades taking up space is not a problem so long as they aren't causing any actual contamination, which as far as we can tell they don't.

The nuclear argument is a strange one, because the reason behind why more new nuclear reactors haven't been built is almost entirely an economic one. They are so expensive and take so long to build that nobody is willing to risk the capital to do it, because they expect that renewables built in the meantime will have cheapened enough to make nuclear unprofitable.

So much like hydrogen powered cars, it's a bit of a distraction really. I personally don't have any moral objections to nuclear, but if it doesn't make economic sense versus renewables, and the construction times are so long that they might be redundant before they are finished then what's the point?
 

TechZel

Posts: 26   +35
Even Lithium, as a battery chemistry, is nowhere near its potential as a commercial product. https://phys.org/news/2019-01-tiny-silicon-particles-power-lithium.html This makes about the fourth of fifth time I've posted this link.

But what they heck. Let's stop research because its not about research. :rolleyes:
If you're responding to the energy density post, I think it's also worth mentioning that an automotive diesel engine is only about 30% thermally efficient, so 70% of the fuel's energy is wasted.
 

mbrowne5061

Posts: 2,024   +1,220
...

Well, then. I suppose you have solved the storage problem and are on your way to the patent office with your super-duper energy storage solution - YES?
What? I never claimed to solve anything.

As for Graphene batteries. Lithium stores ~180Wh/KG, and Graphene stores ~1000Wh/KG; 5.55x improvement. Or, extrapolating out, around ~4MJ/KG for graphene batteries - about 1/3 the energy density of a hydrogen-oxygen reaction in a fuel cell.

AKA: Still trash for when it comes to heavy trucking.