I think of all the major mass-market carmakers operating today, you could argue that Hyundai/Kia are making the boldest design decisions and have some of the strongest, most interesting car designs on the road right now. So when Hyundai shows off a car that’s supposed to reveal its new corporate design language, that’s something I pay attention to. When the brand also reveals said car (it’s called the INITIUM) is a hydrogen car, that’s something I want to roll my eyes at. I think I can do both.
First, let’s talk about the design, because I think there are a lot of interesting things going on here. Hyundai calls the new design language “Art of Steel,” which is an objectively goofy PR kind of name, but I think it still looks good regardless. Here’s what their press release says about it:
“Our challenge began from the manufacturing stage, where we pushed the formability of steel to the extreme to create a form of art,” Lee said. “With INITIUM, we’ve crafted a more SUV-like design that is both solid and safe, reflecting our dedication to our customers through ‘customer-centric design’.”
INITIUM’s iconic design integrates the HTWO symbol, representing Hyundai Motor’s vision for a future driven by hydrogen. The ‘+’ inspired graphic as part of INITIUM’s lighting signature blends with the bumper, creating a distinctive FCEV-specific design cue marked by unique lighting, solid volumes and refined elegance.
INITIUM’s distinct SUV-like aesthetic seamlessly integrates city living functionality with outdoor adventure capability with its bold lines and solid structure, balancing sturdiness and sophistication. The concept’s 21-inch wheels complement the overall design, with the vehicle’s rugged roof rack adding practicality for those with both urban and outdoor lifestyles.”
Mmm, yes, yes, that’s some top-notch press release horseshit right there, fresh and redolent! I think the design is great, though the FCEV (“Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle”) stuff is pretty unnecessary because nobody is driving hydrogen cars, and unless reality changes pretty dramatically, they won’t be, at least not for a long while.
I think the “plus-shaped” motif they’re referencing in the lighting design can just as easily be seen as an extension of Hyundai’s current “pixel” lighting design that features elements on grids of squares, which I feel is very striking and effective.
The proportions of the SUV aren’t particularly radical, but they work quite well; I think Hyundai is doing the surface details especially well, with the character line that flows into that reverse-raked C-pillar and the way the wheel-arch flares have those slot-like gaps in them, but most especially I like what they’re doing with the body panel cutlines. Look at the rear quarter; the cutlines for the panels are very intentional, the (I guess hydrogen?) fuel flap integrates well with the angled cutline that ends at the end of the cargo area window, and then a parallel cutline before the taillamp assembly forms an interesting band of metal. It all makes for visually interesting details.
Now, some of these design cues and ideas have been seen before in the automotive world. At first – and likely because only of the INITIUM’s color and general proportions and my own biases – I saw some Pontiac Aztek here, but upon closer inspection, it’s really quite different. If any car seems to have presaged these lines and look, it’d be the Renault R17 from 1971, seen in yellow up there. It has a similar fastback, a similar C-pillar (the Renault has louvers instead of a window there, but same idea), and the same sort of window graphic concept. It’s honestly a fantastic design reference to have, whether intentional or not.
The roof rack is striking as well, useful-looking and highly graphic, and I think overall this is an interesting direction for Hyundai to be going. I think some of the faceted, low-polygon look they’ve been playing with recently is being softened a bit here, and I suppose that makes sense. I’ll be curious to see how this adapts to other vehicle formats, if we can hope to have things other than SUVs in the future.
I also see Hyundai is keeping the four-light motif going, which is Morse code for “H.” Clever!
Now, the real question I have here is why the hell did Hyundai want to make their design showcase car a hydrogen car? There’s nothing really wrong with hydrogen fuel-cell technology, but there is plenty wrong with the availability of hydrogen. Sure, it’s the most abundant element in the universe, but down here on dirty old Earth, good flapping luck finding any that’s able to be dispensed as fuel unless you live in certain areas of Southern California.
Toyota, Hyundai, and Honda have all been beating the hydrogen drum for years, and what has it gotten them? As far as I can tell, nothing. Hell, a solid decade ago I drove a Hyundai hydrogen fuel cell SUV, the FCEV Tuscon (that’s it pictured above), and hydrogen cars are just as limited and useless as they were then, ten freaking years ago. Nothing has gotten any better. You still can’t easily live with a hydrogen car in 99% of the country, hydrogen is still expensive as hell (yes, more than gasoline), the tanks are still bulky and eat up a lot of interior volume, and there’s still just no compelling reason for anyone to want a hydrogen car.
So why do they keep pushing these things? What do they get out of it? Is it a sex thing? That’s the only answer that makes any sense.
Anyway, at least it looks cool, and I can all but guarantee you’ll see this new design language on almost anything but a hydrogen car in the near future.
Counterpoint: The new Santa Fe.
Huh. Just looking at the pictures, I would say this is the design for the next generation Ioniq 5. (Well, minus the ridiculously sized wheels and that roof rack.)
Releasing the design as a Hydrogen fueled vehicle is just fun pie in the sky dreaming to get marketing attention. (Good job Hyundai marketing folks! You got this site to write this article and engage folks that feel the need to comment and discuss this!)
Off topic. I have actually driven hydrogen fuel cell cars made by Ford on city streets and came away impressed with the driving experience. It feels exactly like driving an EV. I am comfortable saying most folks would have no idea they are not driving an EV. It just uses a different energy source.
Is everything else okay? This feels like we didn’t even read the same article, so I am wondering if it something else that is manifesting here.
LOL, hydrogen. May as well ask us to ride horses.
For those wanting to do hydrogen I don’t understand why they aren’t using reformers as an intermediate step. Nissan experumented with this in Brazil with 85% ethanol, much more prevalent than hydrogen, but they could even do gasoline to hydrogen, it’s a little less efficient but much cheaper to refuel, and still less to break. A stack/reformer/fuel tank package like the scout harvester would be cool.
“Turquoise hydrogen” has a lot of potential. This is where methane gas is turned into solid carbon and hydrogen. ModernHydrogen has pictures on their website but there are lots of companies pushing this. Some companies make a more expensive solid carbon product like graphite or graphene, but ModernHydrogen just picks up the carbon and mixes it in with asphalt.
I can’t really put my finger on it, but there’s something vaguely SAAB-ish about this concept. Maybe because it’s slightly odd and unusual, but still attractive?
So why do they keep pushing these things? What do they get out of it? Is it a sex thing? That’s the only answer that makes any sense.
It’s a cynical way to green washing fossil fuels. The pinkie promise is to sequester emissions tomorrow if they can turn more coal and natural gas into hydrogen today:
https://ieefa.org/resources/hydrogen-energy-supply-chain-project-viability-remains-uncertain-wake-hydrogen-headstart
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-natural-gas-reforming
Hyrdogen is just fossil fuels in a fake moustache, still desperately trying to tell people that these silly BEV cars are just a fad and they should ignore them because hydrogen is just right around the corner, guys!
It does smack of Elon Musk pushing hyperloop doesn’t it?
I was literally thinking of using that metaphor, or FSD.
I have a very important tail light related question. In the image it appears like the tail light area will be body colored, but only show up red when the brakes / tail lights are on much like how the macbook had the hidden power or charging light.
Is this true? I think that would be a really cool effect especially if it could also do the duties of the turn and reverse lights by just changing the color of individual squares.
I think the body-color-panel-that-lets-LED-light-show-through part is already possible. Hyundai Palisades (or maybe just certain trims) have an illuminated inset panel next to the tail light, and it looks like a silvery-painted part but let’s running lights show through.
picture here
I think this works due to the very fine notches that are cut in, but still.
If something goes wrong and Marjorie Taylor Greene with that beautiful blond hair is driving down the highway in a hydrogen car and the problem with the hydrogen car, if something goes wrong, it’s like the atom bomb went off. You’re not recognizable. But they say, ‘We think we have it under control.’ That’s not good enough. They’ll say, ‘We thought it was Marjorie Taylor Greene riding down the middle of the turnpike but she’s no longer recognizable. We found some of her.’
Um no, a hydrogen car won’t explode like that. Those tanks are pretty rupture proof.
Even if it did explode a full HFCV (car) only has about 5 gallons of gasoline equivalent of hydrogen onboard so you’d get more of a boom out of a regular gasoline car.
It’s a joke. Well, I’m pretty sure it is. Tough to tell these days.
You know that, I know that, pretty sure Michael knows that
but there are a whole lot of people who don’t.
I like it.
It’s a handsome design overall and will slowly make its way into other Hyundai platforms. BTW, hydrogen fuel stations are fairly common in S. Korea. Why, I don’t know. Maybe it’s a byproduct of making kimchi. I know that produces all kinds of other gasses. Anyhoo, perhaps the HFC rollout is intended for the domestic market and the rest of us will get BEVs or hybrids. Or, more probably, it’s just a concept vehicle to showcase the new design language.
From a user perspective the problem is that even with a good hydrogen infrastructure you’re still tethered to going to a filling station as a regular task while commuting and running errands around town, not just on road trips. There’s no plugging in overnight and leaving home every morning with a full charge, no being able to fallback to any 120v wall plug as a last resort, so why switch from gasoline in the first place?
Welcome back, Pontiac Aztek
The modern Aztek of my dreams! …well apart from the hydrogen stuff. Make it a BEV.
First thought, it reminded me of the Aztek-styled microwave Jack and some of the writers created in the “Into the Crevasse” episode of 30 Rock.
Hot take: I think hydrogen powered vehicles have a future. Unless there’s a breakthrough in battery tech, that’s going to hold back EVs for a very long time (charging times, energy density, battery degradation, etc.).
All the things you said about hydrogen still being as it was a decade ago was true for EVs in 2012 when Tesla released the first Model S. We need someone to push the tech forward. For all the idiotic things Elon Musk has done, at least he was able to show the world that EVs were feasible. We need another visionary to do the same for hydrogen.
There have been breakthroughs in battery tech. That’s why a lot of the new 800V architecture vehicles have been charging at over 300Kw when just 10 years ago you would’ve been lucky to reach 100Kw in a brand new Model S. If hydrogen really were this magical thing that could replace EV/ICE then automakers would launch more than 2 hydrogen powered vehicles a decade.
There are constant breakthroughs in battery tech, plus exciting things on the horizon, like that solid state tech Toyota showed off with a butt plug for some reason. Or the solid state tech Stellantis (of all people) are starting to test next year.
Solid state has been a couple years away for a decade now.
I’ll believe it’s real when it’s actually on sale.
The OP’s point is basically right as far as commercially available ranges go (recharge times are improved but not enough).
I also think there’s a future for hydrogen powered vehicles, but I think it’s application specific.
I think it has great potential for fleet vehicles, especially in cold weather climates, that operate out of a central depot that can be outfitted with solar panels and windmills to help generate the electricity needed for the hydrogen generator.
I think it might have a place in applications where hauling around a massive amount of battery weight is a huge hindrance to economic viability – like ocean going ships, airliners, and long haul trucking, but that’s about the limit, if even that.
Ocean going ships can use nuclear power. China is already on this.
Airliners can use synthetic jet fuel- it’s the only practical option, especially for long haul airliners.
Long haul trucks can use CNG (3x the energy on the same volume off fuel and a LOT cheaper to boot)
Well, they can use nuclear, that was settled 60 years ago. But nuclearphobia means it isn’t likely to happen
The game changer here is China is working to make civilian container and maybe tanker ships:
https://www.offshore-energy.biz/jiangnan-shipyard-unveils-design-for-the-worlds-largest-nuclear-powered-containership/
It’s been done on a smaller scale, West Germany built a nuclear bulk ore carrier in the ’60s, the Soviet Union built a nuclear LASH container ship in the ’80s, and, of course, the United States built a passenger-cargo combi liner in the ’60s. The key is doing it in volume in a country where the government can’t just dictate that this is how it has to be and mandate it, and also in convincing foreign countries to allow it into their ports, both of which have been pretty crippling in the past
Agreed
The difference is this design uses thorium and climate change coupled with a lack of options is putting much more pressure on the NIMBYS. Also fuel prices are only going up.
Eh, there is a common myth that thorium somehow is “proliferation resistant” due to the fact that thorium itself has no fissile isotopes, but the actual answer is that the Thorium fuel cycle is just as easy, and potentially easier to refine weapons-grade fissile materials (specifically, Pa-233 is one of the major byproducts of Thorium fission and is easily separated because it’s longer half life increase it’s relative purity fraction simply by waiting, and once you have Pa-233 it’s easy to get U-233 (one more decay) and U-235 (decay plus two neutrons), which make bombs go big boom).
That classification society rating basically reads like “sure, if you can get an actual government to sign off on this crazy idea, we’ll play ball as the design meets our requirements, but that will happen when hell freezes over.” I am very pro nuclear, and pro exploring the potential of Thorium, but letting commercial operators just sail around with a crapload of potential fissiles and essentially no security (most freighters do not have any weapons or security personnel) is a recipe for a very bad day.
I think that’s much more of a TV movie of the week plot than a real life scenario. Where could terrorists take a massive hijacked container ship to strip its core of fissile materials? I doubt that possible to do at sea which is a moot point anyway – not like they can hide a giant container ship anywhere in the world. That takes a lot of time too, plenty of time to be caught and the materials recovered.
Use a nuclear ship to wreak havoc? As we’ve recently seen a container ship has no problem taking out a critical infrastructure (Francis Scott Key Bridge, Suez canal, etc) so if terrorists wanted to use giant container ships to cause serious damage that avenue has already been available for a long time. They could load up an oil fired container ship with fertilizer, mix it with the fuel and detonate it in the Panama canal or just sink the ship after ramming the of locks.
Blow the ship up as a dirty bomb in harbor? I guess but then security would be a lot tighter. They’d also have to know how to overload a reactor specifically designed not to overload (unlike say a RBMK 1000 reactor) and take control before someone hit the big red SCRAM button.
We and other countries have navies designed to hunt down and destroy dangerous ships that shoot back – pretty sure a rouge nuclear container ship won’t be a problem for them.
No? Container ships are being attacked and hijacked fairly often these days off of the coasts of Yemen and Somalia. You don’t need the whole ship, just the comparatively small reactor core, which absolutely could be transferred at sea. The NS Savannah’s core was roughly 60 x 60 inch cylinder- a few hours with an acetylene torch and you could cut the thing straight out through the hull (and yes, get lethal radiation poisoning, but for groups that recruit suicide bombers that seems less of a concern).
But talking about attacks is way too dramatic- simple bribery would work much better. Merchant crews are already not the best paid professionals, and tend to draw those who have more itinerant lifestyles. Rolling up to a ship and offering a million bucks in cash to fuck off at the next port of call and let these well-armed gentlemen take over the ship is a much more plausible option.
All nuclear security is based on deny access to the fissile materials to potential bad actors. The commercial shipping industry has nothing like the security needed to even begin exploring this option.
No? Container ships are being attacked and hijacked fairly often these days off of the coasts of Yemen and Somalia.
And how many of those are used in terrorist actions?
You don’t need the whole ship, just the comparatively small reactor core, which absolutely could be transferred at sea. The NS Savannah’s core was roughly 60 x 60 inch cylinder- a few hours with an acetylene torch and you could cut the thing straight out through the hull
That was a completely different reactor design and a completely different, much smaller ship not designed with terrorism in mind.
(and yes, get lethal radiation poisoning, but for groups that recruit suicide bombers that seems less of a concern).
Not just lethal but quickly lethal. and very, very temperature hot, good luck getting near the thing. Anyone stupid enough to pull something like this might be dead before it even cooled enough to handle.
Not that it would matter anyway as the ship would already have been either retaken or sunk by whatever warship or airfield was nearby.
Besides there are much easier ways to get high level nuclear materials:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samut_Prakan_radiation_accident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta-M
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident
How efficient is a hydrogen generator and how much space does the stored hydrogen take up?
Why not just run the vehicles on the electricity generated by the solar panels and windmills?
The Mars rover had lithium batteries and the surface of Mars ranged from -225 to 70 F
The Mars rover traveled 28 miles in 14 years.
Somehow I don’t think energy stored on board was a major factor in its design.
That isn’t the point. The point is it had a Lithium Battery that worked in extreme conditions.
I don’t think anyone is questioning that batteries work in extreme conditions, the valid point being raised is how much range you lose vs temperate conditions.
Cold weather has a larger impact in performance of batteries vs fuel cells – 37% vs 23% in temps 0c to -5c. If 100% = 100 miles, that’s a 14 mile difference. That’s not a small number when you look at where people live.
Efficiency of hydrogen generation – how energy efficient (and climate friendly) is battery production?
If we want performance that’s better for the environment, I don’t think there’s a 1:1 solution for replacing ICE.
“how energy efficient (and climate friendly) is battery production“
This remains the dumbest possible anti-EV argument. Batteries have to be produced once or twice per BEV. Fuel has to be produced CONSTANTLY for ICE or H vehicles.
Anyways, it’s incredibly easy to answer for anybody actually interested in the answer and not just using it as a talking point. BEVs “pay off” in CO2e terms in about 30,000 miles.
I’m not anti-EV and you’re rude.
Yeah, I got a little too heated in that comment. Sorry. But the facts remain the same: battery production is far less energy intensive than fueling cars that require it.
Since H cars not only require batteries but also use significant energy to produce their fuel, they start out behind ICE cars and certainly never catch up to BEVs.
Why not just run the vehicles on the electricity generated by the solar panels and windmills?
A proper comparison between two setups with equivalent energy storage capacity (as in who much actually makes it to the wheels), one hydrogen and the other battery could be very useful in such arguments. Such a comparison should look at capital costs, maintenance, footprint, hazards, etc.
Round trip efficiency of hydrogen is about 40% vs 95% for a BEV. Even for cold weather climates you’re much better off sending that solar panel and windmill power into batteries and using some of the energy for a heat pump.
I don’t agree for that in all applications.
So what application is it advantageous to throw away over half of the energy? Especially given the costs involved to generate and use hydrogen vs just putting electricity directly into a battery?
When you want a lighter vehicle with the same range.
You’re better off powering whatever that thing is with compressed natural gas or alcohol for much greater range.
Any application where energy density is a primary determination of performance. Liquid hydrogen, for all it’s tankage and plumbing challenges, is roughly 250x more energy dense than the very best batteries currently available.
You may throw away half of the energy getting hydrogen to the vehicle, but depending on what kind of vehicle it is you might throw away more energy hauling around heavy batteries, and this can scale extremely quickly for certain vehicle classes. If you were to replace the fuel tanks of an airliner with say, stacks of formula E batteries and electric motors you would discover that your energy consumption needs would increase by a factor of something like 20,000, because airplanes are so sensitive to mass (the scaling factor being the doubling of a square).
BEVs are great for light weight and low speed vehicles. Once you go faster and/or heavier, you energy consumption gets ever more dominated by lugging batteries around.
Liquid hydrogen, for all it’s tankage and plumbing challenges, is roughly 250x more energy dense than the very best batteries currently available.
Only if you ignore the weight of that aforementioned tankage and plumbing which is absolutely essential to store liquid hydrogen. It’s also bulky.
If you were to replace the fuel tanks of an airliner with say, stacks of formula E batteries and electric motors you would discover that your energy consumption needs would increase by a factor of something like 20,000, because airplanes are so sensitive to mass (the scaling factor being the doubling of a square).
I agree which is partly why I do not consider electric airlines viable. That does not mean I think hydrogen powered airliners are any more viable. Hydrogen, either compressed or in liquid form just doesn’t have the volumetric energy density to do the job.
It’s worth looking at the Soviet Tu-155 experiment with liquid hydrogen:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-155
That aircraft had one engine modified to run on either hydrogen and later natural gas. The takeaway was it had 1/3 the range and 2/3 the cabin room on hydrogen vs. the unmodified aircraft. That’s a deal breaker for long range aircraft.
Yes this was a relativity old SOVIET airliner but any advances in engine efficiency would apply to jet fuel too so overall such advances should cancel out.
(It’s worth noting that the same airliner got twice as far on LNG as LH making LNG a much more feasible option)
Thing is, you’ve just described an ideal use case for BEVs especially larger ones like the battery-electric school buses already on the road.
That isn’t a hot take. You can find that take all over the place… wherever people who struggle with math congregate.
Explain how you are getting the H, explain how efficient that process is and what the fuel for the process is, explain how you are consuming the H in the vehicle and how efficient THAT process is… and then get back to us all about whether or not hydrogen has a future,
Ah! Let’s go back to the early 2010’s and do a thought experiment using your own quote:
Is 2010 and I’m a denier like you, so I say: “EVs have to be charged at home or at one of the only few hundred charging stations spread across the whole US. It takes many hours or even days to charge an EV and the range is awful. Those things can’t be used for anything more than short commutes. The few EVs that exist kill their batteries in a few years and become rolling junk (hello David’s Leaf). Electricity generated from renewables is in its infancy, so it’s not only not very efficient, but also causes massive pollution. Batteries weight a ton, explode and catch fire and mining the resources needed to manufacture them destroys the planet. Now get back to me and tell me how in 14 years EVs will become mainstream?”
Spoiler alert. It’s 2024 and they did and we were able to overcome almost all of these problems.
A lot of the challenges preventing hydrogen vehicles from becoming more popular are not more complex than those that prevented EVs from doing the same thing. You reply like I’m against EVs when in fact I even own one, but if recent EV sales prove something is that we haven’t really gotten close to replacing ICEs and we need fresh new techs/ideas.
It isn’t a thought experiment. It is a math equation. Just because EVs got better does not mean hydrogen powered cars will get significantly better.
Internal combustion engine vehicles have been around for 120 years and the highest thermal efficiency is roughly 50%… and the average efficiency for the average car is less than 40%.
So let’s use THAT in your thought experiment. “Hydrogen after 120 years won’t be much more than 50% efficient”.
The problems you mention that need to be overcome for Hydrogen are much more complicated than “lets deploy a bunch of DC drives, technology that already exists, all over the country”.
F=M*A. E=F*d.
The thermal efficiency is but a single step in calculating the overall vehicle efficiency. Yes, it is true that electric motors are vastly more thermally efficient than internal combustion ones, though I do have to note the cars in the article are using hydrogen fuel cells, which can be about 60% thermally efficient in commercial applications, and up to 85% efficient with full regeneration, and by the way they use electric motors, so your prime mover is the same efficiency as a BEV.
The problem with BEVs is the B. Batteries, for all of their wonderful conveniences, have comparatively minuscule energy densities, especially when compared to hydrogen (factor of like 250x there). This means that in say a GMC denali, it takes GMC north of 3000 lbs of batteries in the EV to store a bit less energy than 144 lbs of gasoline used in the ICE version. Hauling around 3000 lbs of additional weight has consequences- every time you accelerate it, you are using quite a lot of energy just to haul batteries.
Spoiler alert. It’s 2024 and they did and we were able to overcome almost all of these problems.
Because there was already a huge worldwide electrical infrastructure and sophisticated worldwide electronics industry.
Hydrogen has no appreciable infrastructure even 15 years later.
Very large companies have been working incredibly hard on H cars for at least 20 years and gotten basically nowhere. At what point do you conclude that maybe there isn’t anywhere to get?
No. The physics of hydrogen haven’t changed. Nor has the tech needed to address those physics. Here is some of what – IMO – is needed:
Zeolite tech to increase volumetric energy density. Right now its takes about 35 gallons of INTERNAL volume to store 5.3 gallons of gasoline equivalent energy. That’s at 10k PSI. Those bulky tanks really cut into packaging and cargo space. The weight of the tanks nullify the weight advantage of hydrogen over gasoline too. Zeolites can store more hydrogen at much lower pressures. Unfortunately despite many decades of research little real progress has been made.
Enough SURPLUS renewable energy to make enough hydrogen to saturate the demand for industrial hydrogen worldwide OR proven long term carbon sequestering tech at the volume needed to sequester not only most of the carbon we’ve already generated over the past 200 years but all the carbon generated making hydrogen from FF too.
A sophisticated international delivery system to at least rival the existing one for gasoline. Bonus points for on site generation using surplus renewable energy.
Much, more reliable and much, much cheaper high pressure hydrogen pumps. This is the lowest hanging fruit.
Much, more reliable and much, much cheaper high pressure hydrogen tanks. They are still too expensive. Toyota lost and still loses a lot of money on each Mirai even at $60k.
In case anyone is wondering what the HTWO symbol that they are talking about is:
https://www.htwo.hyundai.com/en/
In case anyone doesn’t want to scroll all the way to the bottom of the page to see what the damned acronym means:
HydrogenTechnologyWorldwideOrganization