Official Hyundai Tucson FCEV thread

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
drees said:
RAV4-EV: 0.44 kWh/mi * 0.4 lbs CO2 / kWh = 0.176 lbs CO2 / mi
LEAF: 0.3 kWh/mi * 0.4 lbs CO2 / kWh = 0.12 lbs CO2 / mi

Tuscon FCEV: 0.02 kg H2 / mi * 24 lbs CO2 / kg = 0.48 lbs CO2 / mi

Did I make a mistake or is the Tuscon FCEV 3 times worse than the RAV4-EV in terms of CO2 emissions per mile?
Thanks for this. To me this is all we need to know.

BTW, in this PNW - my "green" electricity is 100% renewable. But even avg CA electricity makes a BEV so much better than FCEV.

Ofcourse, FCEV will be zero Carbon too if made only from "green" electricity. But the problem is, we need 3 times the electricity to go the same distance in FCEV compared to BEV.
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
You can find similar reality-check quotes about the exorbitant cost per ton of CO2 reduction due to California's promotion of EVs, compared to using the same money for any number of more cost effective measures. Of course, those calcs ignore the effects of reductions due to EVs sold outside California, but the fact remains that subsidizing EVs is far more expensive than reducing Carbon/CO2 through many other methods. If anyone wants to be smug about your transportation GHG emissions, get out of your car and walk, bike or take public transit, and don't fly or drive.
He was responding to a post which said nothing about the dollar cost of CO2 reduction. The post was primarily about the environmental damage caused by producing and fueling the Hyundai Tuscon FCEV compared with producing and fueling the Nissan LEAF considering the very small amount of additional utility provided.

The facts remain:
- Producing each Hyundai Tuscon FCEV does massively more damage to the environment than does producing each Nissan LEAF EV.
- Construction of fueling infrastructure for the Hyundai Tuscon FCEV is massively more damaging to the environment than construction of fast-charge fueling infrastructure to provide the equivalent number of vehicle-miles with the Nissan LEAF.
- Each mile driven in the Hyundai Tuscon FCEV does about 4X the environmental damage that driving the same mile in the Nissan LEAF would do.

Far from being the next progression in environmentally-friendly vehicle technology that Hyundai promotes it to be, hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles are a huge step backwards for our environment. You can dance around these unfortunate facts all you want, but that is the reality today.

All of this could be forgiven if there was some future crossover point between the two technologies. It is a real stretch to try to promote that idea.
As has been pointed out in the H2 and FCEV topic, it's entirely possible for FCEVs to beat BEVs as far as GHG emissions, including all externalities. But whether they do or not, and whether they are more energy efficient than BEVs (they're not) isn't the point. The point is that either is better environmentally than ICEs, but unless they provide sufficient perceived capability and value to the general public, they won't be bought. At the moment, neither can do so at a price the general public is willing to pay, with or without subsidies (I assume, Reg, that given the studies I referenced in the other thread you're no longer claiming that the public will buy these cars sans subsidies?).

One or the other tech, or both, will have to succeed if we're going to get off fossil fuels. The only way I believe they can likely do that at current gas prices is by providing capability similar to ICEs, plus something else that the public values. Separate spheres _may_ work this time around, but I have my doubts. And unlike the case one hundred and ten years ago, ICEs aren't just one of three possible technologies all at similar levels of development; they have not only been the dominant technology for a century, but their capabilities and pace have woven themselves into the social fabric, especially in this country.

At the moment, BEVs are further away from matching ICE capabilities and fitting into that social fabric with minimal change than FCEVs are. Maybe BEVs will surge ahead faster in the coming years, or maybe not. Or maybe the social fabric will change significantly away from the one made possible if not essential by ICEs, which would weight things more in favor of BEVs. Although I personally think it's preferable, I'm not counting on the latter. People are much more inclined to continue along the same path even with its limitations, because it's familiar. Or as some wise gentlemen wrote some time ago, albeit on a different subject, "all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

FCEVs allow people to change to EVs with the minimal disruption in what they're used to, and absent any dramatic change in the situation, IMO are more likely to find favor with mainstream consumers in this country for that reason. Absolute measures of efficiency are nice to have, but are likely to be less relevant to people than other capabilities, just as many people here are driving BEVs instead of riding a bike (even an E-bike) despite the latter's efficiency and environmental advantages. And now back to the Tucson, because we're veering well into the area covered by the general H2/FCEV topic.
 
GRA said:
At the moment, neither can do so at a price the general public is willing to pay, with or without subsidies (I assume, Reg, that given the studies I referenced in the other thread you're no longer claiming that the public will buy these cars sans subsidies?).
:?: Nothing in those studies says that BEVs are too expensive for the public to buy. What they indicate is that more people buy them when the subsidies are higher. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Carlos Ghosn was very clear to point out that he was putting cars into markets where the subsidies are. It makes the most sense. Simply put, lifetime costs for BEVs are lower than any other option for some applications in some markets. I would have bought our LEAF with or without the subisides. It's still the best choice. That market grows as the vehicles improve.
GRA said:
At the moment, BEVs are further away from matching ICE capabilities and fitting into that social fabric with minimal change than FCEVs are.
That's a ridiculous statement.
GRA said:
And now back to the Tucson, because we're veering well into the area covered by the general H2/FCEV topic.
No, only you are veering there. We have been pointing out how environmentally unfriendly this vehicle is relative to the LEAF. Your attempts to convince people that this extremely-highly-subsidized technology is anywhere close to the lightly-subsidized BEV technology is pretty hard to swallow. It's about the most blatant attempt you have yet made to bash BEVs.

Sorry, I don't promote "green" technology that isn't.
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
At the moment, neither can do so at a price the general public is willing to pay, with or without subsidies (I assume, Reg, that given the studies I referenced in the other thread you're no longer claiming that the public will buy these cars sans subsidies?).
:?: Nothing in those studies says that BEVs are too expensive for the public to buy. What they indicate is that more people buy them when the subsidies are higher. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Carlos Ghosn was very clear to point out that he was putting cars into markets where the subsidies are. It makes the most sense. Simply put, lifetime costs for BEVs are lower than any other option for some applications in some markets. I would have bought our LEAF with or without the subisides. It's still the best choice. That market grows as the vehicles improve.
The most relevant study indicated that over 70% of the California owners/lessees considered the state and California subsidies to be either "very important" or "extremely important" in "Importance of factors that made it possible to buy an EV", with another 30.6% saying that other incentive programs were also very/extremely important, and this was for people of whom only 24% had incomes of less than $100k/year. If you don't think that is indicative of whether the general public would buy these cars without subsidies, I guess we'll just have to disagree.

RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
At the moment, BEVs are further away from matching ICE capabilities and fitting into that social fabric with minimal change than FCEVs are.
That's a ridiculous statement.
Since I don't wish to repeat everything that's been discussed in the general H2 thread here, see my posts there for my rationale.

RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
And now back to the Tucson, because we're veering well into the area covered by the general H2/FCEV topic.
No, only you are veering there. We have been pointing out how environmentally unfriendly this vehicle is relative to the LEAF. Your attempts to convince people that this extremely-highly-subsidized technology is anywhere close to the lightly-subsidized BEV technology is pretty hard to swallow. It's about the most blatant attempt you have yet made to bash BEVs.
Reg, despite being accused of it on several occasions, I've never made any attempt to bash BEVs. Or PHEVs, FCEVs or EVs in general, for that matter. I'm perfectly happy to let each find their niche, succeed or fail on their own merits, as I've stated repeatedly in the other thread. Re the level of subsidies, see the H2 thread or the subsidy thread, as that has already been covered in both places.

RegGuheert said:
Sorry, I don't promote "green" technology that isn't.
Reg, feel free to promote whichever green technology you want to, and more power to you. In the meantime, via ABG:

"QUICK SPIN - 2015 Hyundai Tucson Fuel Cell"

http://www.autoblog.com/2014/06/18/2015-hyundai-tucson-fuel-cell-quick-spin-review/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
GRA said:
In the meantime, via ABG:

"QUICK SPIN - 2015 Hyundai Tucson Fuel Cell"

http://www.autoblog.com/2014/06/18/2015-hyundai-tucson-fuel-cell-quick-spin-review/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thanks for the link. There is something seriously wrong with the following quote:
Autoblog said:
The standard Tucson Limited FWD, with a 2.4-liter combustion engine, tips the scales at 3,294 pounds. Brace yourself, as the Tucson Fuel Cell is a whopping 807 pounds heavier. Hyundai engineers note swapping the gasoline engine for a fuel stack under the front hood is virtually a wash, and the two Kevlar-wrapped fuel tanks don't add much weight. The bulk of the added mass comes from the 24-kW lithium polymer battery pack.
If the battery accounts for "the bulk of the added mass" then it seems clear that Hyundai could have easily made this into a real EV by adding a plug and a charger. But I suspect the reporter has this completely wrong, since I seriously doubt that a sub-1-kWh Lithium Polymer battery weighs anywhere close to 807 pounds. Fifty pounds would be my guess.

And the obvious secondary conclusion is that the fuel-cell system including storage tanks and battery add over 800 pounds to the weight of the vehicle above and beyond what the ICE-drive system and tank weighed. I would argue that a Hyundai Tuscon BEV with a battery over 30kWh would weigh the same and be a better choice for most consumers.
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
At the moment, BEVs are further away from matching ICE capabilities and fitting into that social fabric with minimal change than FCEVs are.
That's a ridiculous statement.
Indeed it is. To get H2 infrastructure to be anywhere close to ICE, Trillions of $$$$$$$$$$ would need to be spent. For BEV we are only talking an order of magnitude less.
 
evnow said:
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
At the moment, BEVs are further away from matching ICE capabilities and fitting into that social fabric with minimal change than FCEVs are.
That's a ridiculous statement.
Indeed it is. To get H2 infrastructure to be anywhere close to ICE, Trillions of $$$$$$$$$$ would need to be spent. For BEV we are only talking an order of magnitude less.
I was talking about general capabilities and similarity to ICE habits, not the fueling infrastructure. Obviously, building the fueling infrastructure will be expensive and take several decades, just as building the gas station infrastructure did (last year being the 100th anniversary of the first gas station in the U.S. The total at the peak was around 160,000, but has now declined to something over 100,000).

In the "Today the sun rose in the east" news category, via GCR:

"2015 Hyundai Tucson Fuel Cell To Earn CA Credits, Not Profits"

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1092825_2015-hyundai-tucson-fuel-cell-to-earn-ca-credits-not-profits" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As even the article makes clear, this is not exactly a shock.
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
In the meantime, via ABG:

"QUICK SPIN - 2015 Hyundai Tucson Fuel Cell"

http://www.autoblog.com/2014/06/18/2015-hyundai-tucson-fuel-cell-quick-spin-review/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thanks for the link. There is something seriously wrong with the following quote:
Autoblog said:
The standard Tucson Limited FWD, with a 2.4-liter combustion engine, tips the scales at 3,294 pounds. Brace yourself, as the Tucson Fuel Cell is a whopping 807 pounds heavier. Hyundai engineers note swapping the gasoline engine for a fuel stack under the front hood is virtually a wash, and the two Kevlar-wrapped fuel tanks don't add much weight. The bulk of the added mass comes from the 24-kW lithium polymer battery pack.
If the battery accounts for "the bulk of the added mass" then it seems clear that Hyundai could have easily made this into a real EV by adding a plug and a charger. But I suspect the reporter has this completely wrong, since I seriously doubt that a sub-1-kWh Lithium Polymer battery weighs anywhere close to 807 pounds. Fifty pounds would be my guess.
I suspect you're right, or at least more right than the article. If we take the LEAF's battery as typical (I know, it's not a power battery), one kWh in the pack weighs about 28.3 lb., but that's not cooled. Frame weight as a % of total pack weight should decrease as the pack gets bigger (area/volume increasing faster than circumference), so the smaller pack plus cooling should weigh more per kWh than the LEAF. Then there's the knock-on effects of that unsprung weight on the suspension, as well as possibly other changes due to shifts in Cg and/or crash requirements. So, 50 lb. sure, 100 lb. isn't unreasonable, but anything over 200 lb. seems unreasonable.

RegGuheert said:
And the obvious secondary conclusion is that the fuel-cell system including storage tanks and battery add over 800 pounds to the weight of the vehicle above and beyond what the ICE-drive system and tank weighed. I would argue that a Hyundai Tuscon BEV with a battery over 30kWh would weigh the same and be a better choice for most consumers.
The LEAf's uncooled 24kWh pack weighs 680 lb., so assuming a 30kWh pack of the same design that would add 20-25%, 134-168 lb. or 814-848 lb. total before adding a cooling system. And the range would be about 1/3 of the Tucson FCEV.
 
GRA said:
In the "Today the sun rose in the east" news category, via GCR:

"2015 Hyundai Tucson Fuel Cell To Earn CA Credits, Not Profits"

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1092825_2015-hyundai-tucson-fuel-cell-to-earn-ca-credits-not-profits" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As even the article makes clear, this is not exactly a shock.
From the article:
Green Car Reports said:
According to the Ward's article, Hyundai will accumulate the ZEV credits to offset its needs in the future, as the required number of zero-emission vehicles rises in later phases of the program.

Each Tucson Fuel Cell could be worth up to $130,000 in such credits through 2017, according to the complex calculations for valuing ZEV credits.
I don't really understand how these ZEV credits work, but that seems like an obscene amount of government credit to provide. Is that statement accurate? Is it an actual credit, or is it rather an avoidance of some sort of penalty?
 
As I understand it, the ZEV credits are not paid by the government, they are bought by other manufacturers that are not building up to the threshold set by CA CARB board.
Fuel cell vehicles get 9 credits per vehicle. So the manufacture can use those to meet the threshold and if they surpass them, can sell them to other manufacturers.
 
Zythryn said:
As I understand it, the ZEV credits are not paid by the government, they are bought by other manufacturers that are not building up to the threshold set by CA CARB board.
Fuel cell vehicles get 9 credits per vehicle. So the manufacture can use those to meet the threshold and if they surpass them, can sell them to other manufacturers.
Thanks! So they are exchanged at some sort of a bourse, sort of like SRECs. In the case of SRECs, there is a government penalty associated with not having sufficient credits, so that caps the maximum value of the credits. Perhaps the penalty amount is what caps the nine credits at $130,000? (I assume no one would pay more than the penalty amount...)
 
GRA said:
I was talking about general capabilities and similarity to ICE habits, not the fueling infrastructure. Obviously, building the fueling infrastructure will be expensive and take several decades, just as building the gas station infrastructure did (last year being the 100th anniversary of the first gas station in the U.S. The total at the peak was around 160,000, but has now declined to something over 100,000).
You can't get to a ICE like "habits" with an FCEV unless you have those 100,000 H2 stations all over the place. That is my point - there is no divorcing the fact of 6 H2 stations vs 100,000 gas stations and FCEV driving habits vs ICE driving habits.

This ridiculous FCEV "rollout" makes RAV4EV look like a widely distributed car :lol: :lol:
 
evnow said:
GRA said:
I was talking about general capabilities and similarity to ICE habits, not the fueling infrastructure. Obviously, building the fueling infrastructure will be expensive and take several decades, just as building the gas station infrastructure did (last year being the 100th anniversary of the first gas station in the U.S. The total at the peak was around 160,000, but has now declined to something over 100,000).
You can't get to a ICE like "habits" with an FCEV unless you have those 100,000 H2 stations all over the place. That is my point - there is no divorcing the fact of 6 H2 stations vs 100,000 gas stations and FCEV driving habits vs ICE driving habits.

This ridiculous FCEV "rollout" makes RAV4EV look like a widely distributed car :lol: :lol:
And you can't get to ICE habits without those gas stations either, although you can get some ways towards it by selling gas in general stores (as was the case before gas stations existed). And BEVs can't get anywhere without installing reasonably fast charging infrastructure, at home to get the maximum benefit, plus quick chargers en route. Public, for-profit charging has been a bust, because the long turn-over time and overhead costs make it a money loser. That's not a problem for gas stations, and it won't be for H2 stations either. So, sure, it will be expensive and it will take us many decades to get to large numbers of H2 fueling stations and FCEVs. But then, it took us well over a decade to get to 1 million gas cars on the road, so it's not as if FCEVs and H2s can't and won't grow together. And does anyone think that Tesla's Supercharger network can yet be described as _robust_? In two years, they've installed just under 100 in the U.S., to serve something like 25,000 cars. At the current rate it will be at least 5 years before you can really go anywhere you want in the U.S. without having to plan your trip out in detail. And only if you can afford a BEV with Tesla range (not that FCEVs are any cheaper at the moment, but their projected cost reduction curves are still a lot steeper).

Obviously, absent home refueling FCEVs will need a higher number of stations per car than a BEV like a Tesla will, but then they can and will be put where people are instead of having to be put where they aren't to prevent local freeloaders (this being due to Tesla's business model rather than anything inherent in the Superchargers), so people won't have to change their behavior at all. Societal inertia is a powerful force; if you doubt it, just look at your keyboard layout. It's almost assuredly QWERTY, even though the technical reason for it ended at the very latest when IBM introduced the Selectric 53 years ago if not well before, and faster/more efficient keyboard layouts have been available for at least the past 80 years. But we're still using Qwerty because, even though it's less efficient, it's 'good enough' that most can't be bothered to make the effort to learn something new.
 
RegGuheert said:
Zythryn said:
As I understand it, the ZEV credits are not paid by the government, they are bought by other manufacturers that are not building up to the threshold set by CA CARB board.
Fuel cell vehicles get 9 credits per vehicle. So the manufacture can use those to meet the threshold and if they surpass them, can sell them to other manufacturers.
Thanks! So they are exchanged at some sort of a bourse, sort of like SRECs. In the case of SRECs, there is a government penalty associated with not having sufficient credits, so that caps the maximum value of the credits. Perhaps the penalty amount is what caps the nine credits at $130,000? (I assume no one would pay more than the penalty amount...)

Yes, there is a penalty of $5000 per credit not earned. Here are the credit balances:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/zevcredits/2012zevcredits.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
Via GCR:

"Hyundai Tucson Fuel Cell Covers 435 Miles On Single Tank Of Hydrogen"

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1093227_hyundai-tucson-fuel-cell-covers-435-miles-on-single-tank-of-hydrogen" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not representative of freeway cruising and probably not too representative of the average driver, but still nice. They averaged 47 mph, while the Tesla Model S that went 423.5 miles on a charge only averaged 25 mph, and that in warmer temps.
 
Via GCC:
Hyundai delivers first fuel cell vehicle in Québec
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/08/20160811-hyundai.html

Hyundai Auto Canada Corp. has delivered a 2016 Tucson Fuel Cell vehicle to the Centre de Gestion de l’Equipment Roulant (CGER)—its first customer in Québec, the third province where the vehicle can now be found.

The CGER manages vehicle fleets for Québec provincial ministries and the lease is in partnership with the Hydrogen Research Institute of Trois-Rivieres at Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières. The vehicle will be refueled at the Institute. . . .

So far it looks like they're limited to fleet use in Canada, with 6 in BC and 1 in Ontario. Given the almost non-existent fueling infrastructure there, that's not surprising.

Canada does seem to me to be a better fit for FCEVs than BEVs in rural areas at their current stages of development, given the long driving distances and frigid temps, always assuming a fueling infrastructure is built, of course. BEVs win in the urban areas where most of the population is concentrated, although a high % live in MFH with no way to charge, and they would really benefit from the 2nd Gen's bigger batteries to handle the heat/defroster load.
 
GRA said:
Canada does seem to me to be a better fit for FCEVs than BEVs in rural areas at their current stages of development, given the long driving distances and frigid temps, always assuming a fueling infrastructure is built, of course. BEVs win in the urban areas where most of the population is concentrated, although a high % live in MFH with no way to charge, and they would really benefit from the 2nd Gen's bigger batteries to handle the heat/defroster load.

Rather thann build out a ridiculously expensive hydrogen network that will likely continue to promote fracking of natural gas and release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at a greater level than just driving a Toyota Prius, why don't we put heaters on the batteries in those cold weather areas that are fueled by something other than electricity?

Too simple you ask? Yes, it will eventually blow up the future multi-billion dollar hydrogen government grant game.

What could power a vehicle onboard heater that would heat the battery so that the battery will perform as if it were a nice warm sunny day like in beautiful San Diego? Almost anything, including gasoline / diesel. Alcohol, propane, natural gas,, even hydrogen. What makes sense? Not an "exotic" energy that has no infrastructure.
 
TonyWilliams said:
GRA said:
Canada does seem to me to be a better fit for FCEVs than BEVs in rural areas at their current stages of development, given the long driving distances and frigid temps, always assuming a fueling infrastructure is built, of course. BEVs win in the urban areas where most of the population is concentrated, although a high % live in MFH with no way to charge, and they would really benefit from the 2nd Gen's bigger batteries to handle the heat/defroster load.
Rather thann build out a ridiculously expensive hydrogen network that will likely continue to promote fracking of natural gas and release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at a greater level than just driving a Toyota Prius, why don't we put heaters on the batteries in those cold weather areas that are fueled by something other than electricity?

Too simple you ask? Yes, it will eventually blow up the future multi-billion dollar hydrogen government grant game.

What could power a vehicle onboard heater that would heat the battery so that the battery will perform as if it were a nice warm sunny day like in beautiful San Diego? Almost anything, including gasoline / diesel. Alcohol, propane, natural gas,, even hydrogen. What makes sense? Not an "exotic" energy that has no infrastructure.
Tony, as you are aware I'm all for auxiliary on-board heaters for BEVs, but IIRR to date only Volvo seems to have ever done this for any PEV. IDK if the issue is space, cost or safety (testing, a cost issue).

As for promotion of fracking, that will depend on costs, and PV/Wind are reaching the point where they are cost-competitve with NG without subisidies. Besides, Canada's grid is already cleaner than ours: http://www.electricity.ca/media/IndustryData/Electricity_Generation_in_Canada_by_Fuel_Type_2012.PNG
 
I wasn't necessarily referring to natural gas for electricity production, but instead as the base material for hydrogen. As you know, hydrogen doesn't just float around us; we have to extract it from something, and it takes two things to make the happen

1) the base material that contains H2
2) the significant energy required to split the H2 from its base material, compress it and cool it

There are four main sources for the commercial production of hydrogen: natural gas, oil, coal, and electrolysis; which account for 48%, 30% 18% and 4% of the world’s hydrogen production respectively (from Wikipedia).
 
Back
Top