This is at 66.9 km/h (40 mph) in order to greatly increase its range due to lower drag compared to normal highway speeds.
As a comparison a Tesla Model 3 got 975km (606 miles) at 40 km/h (25 mph) [1]. I can't seem to find any range tests at a similar speed as the Nexo.
I found an EPA dyno test for the Model 3 at 77 km/h (48mph) for 708 km (440 miles).
The Nexo and Model 3 have similar dimension and weight and price, while the Nexo advertises 380 miles vs 353 miles.
It doesn't seem like current fuels cell have much of a energy density / range advantage even though hydrogen itself is much more energy dense, the fuel cell weight and efficiency and high pressure liquid hydrogen tanks must be accounted for.
Also fuel cell cars seem to use a buffer battery and have lower power output than BEV's as current fuel cells can't output as much burst power and can't store power from regenerative braking with out a battery somewhere.
Pretty skeptical about hydrogen fuel cells compared to the continued advancement in battery tech.
Edit: very good efficiency comparison of hydrogen vs batteries by Volkswagen, which to me shows the biggest issue with using hydrogen in cars the "well to wheel" efficiency:
> This is at 66.9 km/h (40 mph) in order to greatly increase its range due to lower drag compared to normal highway speeds.
> As a comparison a Tesla Model 3 got 975km (606 miles) at 40 km/h (25 mph) [1]. I can't seem to find any range tests at a similar speed as the Nexo.
> It doesn't seem like current fuels cell have much of a energy density / range advantage even though hydrogen itself is much more energy dense, the fuel cell weight and efficiency and high pressure liquid hydrogen tanks must be accounted for.
I'm curious to know how you come to this conclusion? I don't know much about aerodynamics other than at, as a first order approximation, drag is proportional to the SQUARE of the velocity. Driving 887.5 km at an average speed of 66.9 km/h is, afaict, much more impressive than driving 975 km at 40 km/h.
>It doesn't seem like current fuels cell have much of a energy density / range advantage even though hydrogen itself is much more energy dense, the fuel cell weight and efficiency and high pressure liquid hydrogen tanks must be accounted for.
Hydrogen has a better gravimetric scaling than batteries - as stored energy increases, the fixed weight of the fuel cell is amortised over more energy and the weight of high pressure tanks goes up with their surface area while the energy stores goes up with volume.
So for applications where you want to store a lot of energy and are weight but not volume limited, hydrogen might make enough sense to pay the efficiency penalty required to turn electricity into hydrogen and back again.
That's why it makes more sense for big trucks than it does for passenger cars where volume limitations matter a lot more and where total energy is less.
Hydrogen needs to be a game changer to command a redirection of investment and effort for consumer transportation.
Even if it offers 20% better range and some allegedly better refuel experience (H2 people keep handwaving that as "solved"), that wouldn't justify the gigantic infrastructure switchover cost.
Electric vehicles can use the grid. That's a massive advantage for infrastructure readiness and scalability, even if the current grid isn't ready for full EV consumer transportation.
EVs can use home solar as well. Easily scalable, adds redundancy and alleviates load to the grid.
H2 would need a huge buildout of hydrogen generators, transporters, refuelling. EVs are so far ahead of all of that.
By the time any significant H2 infrastructure was out there, it'd be 10 years even if they secured 100s of billions in financing yesterday.
In 10 years, the alternative energy / solar / home solar / grid / battery / storage economic proposition is likely to be 50% cheaper in real dollars, and possibly even better.
It's the same problem nuclear faces.
Sure, throw some money at places like aviation or maritime shipping.
But it's just distraction, because I think the oil industry knows that the hydrogen will come from natural gas for the foreseeable (10-40 years) with some "future switchover" to "green hydrogen".
Green hydrogen smacks of "clean coal". Granted the physics/engineering for it are a lot more realizable.
But everyone should see that for the shell game it is.
The Nexo is much less aerodynamic than the Model 3. One is an SUV/CUV, the other is a low sedan which looks like wet poop. The Nexo has more frontal area and a higher CD. And the Tesla is known for rigging its EPA tests for higher, but illusory, numbers.
Since “tank” isn’t a unit of measure, I suppose anyone could trivially break the record with a larger tank.
From the article:
> The Nexo consumed 6.27kg of H2
For comparison with the other production H2 cars:
Toyota Mirai: 5.6kg
Honda Clarity: 5.0kg
Seems like a promising technology. My understanding is that the current blocker is infrastructure. It’s hard to pressurize up to 10,000 PSI, so many facilities are only able to refill to 60-80% capacity.
Beyond the missing expensive infrastructure, the big problem is energy efficiency. Moving forward, we have to switch every energy production to renewables. But for the same amount of electric energy produced, an electric car gets about 3x the mileage than producing "green" hydrogen and powering fuel cell cars with it. Hydrogen means at least 3x the electricity cost and for many years to come, we are going to struggle producing enough clean electricity in the first place.
Also the infrastructure for electricity basically is there, mostly needed are plain outlets at all long-term parking spots. And of course, one can charge an electric car from your own solar.
"Make it bigger" doesn't really work in cars, otherwise range anxiety wouldn't exist as a concept.
The record still makes sense because the Hyundai Nexo is commercially available and it's not a prototype with a comically-large just for the record tank.
Sounds like you're talking about distribution infrastructure, which is true but in my mind the biggest issue is efficiency. Storing and using H2 isn't very efficient, and current production techniques for H2 emit as much or more carbon as Diesel.
10,000PSI hydraulics are rapidly becoming cookie cutter commodity parts. Once you have the supply chain for all the little crap that nickles and dimes you the rest is a lot cheaper. Having industry expertise at working at those pressures really has a huge multiplier effect on everything else.
Building a system to plumb stuff from A to B at a pressure nobody uses is expensive. Calling up a sales rep and asking for slightly modifications on an existing product line so it can be used with your product is pennies by comparison.
The amount actually traveled on a single tank is indeed meaningless - Teslas can go a thousand miles if you go up a mountain, end up at 10% battery, then charge to & past 100% on the way down the mountain via regen. Improving overall efficiency should be what is strived for.
Feels like the infrastructure and on car issues are going to be similar to CNG, but worse. Need new fuel stations, high pressure storage, no existing delivery network (worse than CNG; although CNG pipelines are much lower pressure than vehicles need, so you needed a compressor at the fueling point); and the killer --- the vehicle tanks expire and replacement may not be economically feasible, in which case your car's value evaporates when the tank expires (generally 15 years after tank manufacture); this is what happened to most CNG cars.
FWIW: the material challenges for hydrogen are such that I do not think that it will ever be a mainstream storage medium for vehicular use (it's not a fuel, it is a battery).
- hydrogen embrittlement
- leakage from whatever container you plan to use
- very low activation energy -> always danger of explosion
So it's a great thing in the lab and to get subsidy for but it sucks for large scale deployment, and deploying it in devices that have a long projected lifespan has its own special class of problems.
Plenty of manufacturers have already had hydrogen test fleets and as far as I'm aware all but a few have been abandoned.
I have to agree with you, because I've seen detailed instructions, schematics and photographs of the apparatus for refueling a hydrogen fuel cell based UAV. The pressures of the tanks involved and connectors, pipe and hose system do not look like something you would want millions of ordinary untrained end-user consumers attaching to vehicles. Everything needs to be perfectly clean and in pristine condition in order to be safe.
People already manage to start fires and cause disaster at gas stations doing something as simple as putting a nozzle into their car and filling it with 87 octane gasoline.
I think if you are going to go with a highly energy inefficient storage medium then methane makes more sense. It's a lot more practical to transport and store. It can be carbon neutral as well if you use sabatier generators or bio reactors instead of fossil fuels. You can convert existing ICE engines to use it too.
It's definitely not ideal, but it's still a fair bit better than the hydrogen options which generally just kind of suck. (3000PSI vs 5000PSI for CNG vs H2) If you can source something to dissolve it in you can also store it as LNG. Busses have been using it for ages now. Although I've seen what happens when an CNG tank goes on those busses and it is scary as heck. I can't imagine a similar issue with hydrogen. That stuff is scary.
Hydrogen fuel is still a fossil fuel byproduct right? I’m not sure what the point of this is. It sure doesn’t seem like a green technology at this point.
It is, but it doesn't have to be. It is possible to make H2 from H20 and sunlight. At the moment there is little market for such "green" hydrogen but the hope is that hydrogen-based transportation will create that market.
Imho I cannot afford to be a market leaders in this field. Until H2 is available everywhere, including at remote locations during Canadian winters, I'll have to stick to gas stations. (I have yet to see any electric car that can handle -50*c.)
It's not a fossil fuel byproduct. It's a fossil fuel product.
You take natural gas, split it in a process called steam reforming, you get hydrogen and CO2 emissions.
Green hydrogen only exists in very small quantities these days and for many years to come it'll be needed to first replace existing natural gas based hydrogen and to decarbonize industries like steel. There's basically a consensus among energy experts these days that hydrogen in cars is a dead end.
3 main sources.
1- Natural Gas
2- Renewable Natural Gas (capping waste emissions from waste water treatment or municipal solid waste and coverting to Hydrogen). Net negative CO2 but smaller supply
3- Electrolysis (electricity + water). Source of electricity determines the cleanliness of the H2. Still requires water which is not ideal (especially in california)
The car has an HEPA filter which removes dust from the air which is nice but that's not the whole story, as can be expected from marketing.
6.3kg of hydrogen consumed means 50 kg of atmospheric oxygen consumed, which is 170 000 liters of air. So it purified 450 000 liters but it also removed oxygen from that same air, around 38% of it. I would not breathe that exhaust air, it may not be CO2 rich, but it sure is oxygen depleted.
To make a fuel cell work, you need an external oxygen supply for the chemical reaction. A cleaner oxygen supply with fewer particles make the fuel cell work longer, therefore Hyundai added an air filter which filters out fine particles before passing it on to the fuel cell.
(I'm not an expert, but this is how I understood the process.)
> “I was constantly checking the Nexo’s efficiency readout to maximise the distance I was getting per kilogram of hydrogen. I found that by using techniques from rally driving, such as looking as far down the road as possible, as well as tips I have learned from my dad for driving a truck efficiently over long distances, it’s actually possible to go way beyond Nexo’s official range.”
Anyone have some insights on this? The efficient driving tips that is?
It generally breaks down to don’t brake unless you have to, and know & use the performance characteristics of whatever you’re driving.
This might mean slowing down while anticipating stoplight changes, curves or congestion behavior so you can just keep rolling, not accelerating over the top of a hill or entering a decline with excess speed, leaving a good distance to the car in front and so on.
Also knowing the efficiency characteristics of your vehicle. For ICE cars, generally running in high gear/low RPM. Not going fast. Engine braking is also braking, clutch in or shift to neutral while rolling downhill might help. But obviously use engine braking on very long declines, so you don’t burn out your brakes. Prefer regenerative braking rather than mechanical braking in battery vehicles with this feature. This is generally done by changing speed slowly, which requires that you think a few seconds ahead. Don’t accelerate hard if your engine/motor burns more energy than if accelerating slowly.
I drive a Prius, it's a skill to drive efficiently. The main tip: do not use the gas pedal if you're going to brake soon anyway. Think of the brakes as wasting gas, then you'll use the brakes sparingly, and the safe way to do that is by not accelerating unnecessarily.
Just think of this. You see some kid in a red sports car at a stop sign. They blast off quickly, then after one block they brake hard for the next stop sign. That's wasting gas, brake pads, and creating more emissions in that area too.
Other than that, accelerate slowly, watch your RPMs, stay around 60 mph, take it easy on hills, there's a lot to it, even without a Prius Regen style battery.
In hydrogen versus electric, it would seem that hydrogen offers way more to the auto and fuel industries in terms of ability to extract ongoing payments out of consumers for parts, single source or limited / controlled source fuel, and maintenance of a large complex system of high tech components.
It also ties the consumer to that fuel system with no other options. You can’t, in other words, fill up at home in your parking spot.
The potential for auto parts profits is high because hydrogen, being the smallest molecule, is notoriously corrosive as it is able to leak through almost any material. And able to bond with many molecules, causing corrosion. So I would expect a lot of degradation over time.
So I guess that’s why Toyota loves this: ongoing parts sales. As a former Toyota owner, I loved the reliability at first, but it was not absolute, and the parts cost for repairs started approaching the cost of car payments as the car got older.
I remember back during the 2008 oil crisis, I was on a forum where we were talking about energy and the alternatives to oil and the consensus was that hydrogen was a lot less efficient than batteries. You had to store the hydrogen in compressed cylinders, it's flammable, you need expensive catalysts in fuel cells to transform it, though hydrogen is light, it takes a lot of volume to store it because it doesn't compress very well, refueling is complicated. There are also losses at every step of the energy pipeline: electrolysis, pipelining, compressing, decompressing, running it through fuel cells ,etc. It's much more efficient and less complicated to just use electricity and batteries.
Hydrogen is the future of electric transportation!
Imagine you are driving and you have several cartridges of magnesium hydride and when you pass by a refueling station a drone catches up with you and swaps nearly-depleted cartridges one by one all while you continue going! How cool is that! B-)
And then you can refuel by stuff that you produce yourself using photo catalyst solar panels in your back yard.
It's not quite clear from the article, but is this a stock Hyundai Nexo or was it modified to add more fuel tanks? The stock range of the car is 413 miles or 664km, so how exactly was this new record achieved?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the issue with hydrogen the supply chain? I believe the overwhelming majority of hydrogen is currently produced from fossil fuels.
> As of 2020, the majority of hydrogen (∼95%) is produced from fossil fuels by steam reforming of natural gas, partial oxidation of methane, and coal gasification. [1]
There is a great concern about the safety of Lithium batteries because of the fire hazard, yet we are pursuing a much more dangerous technology with Hydrogen with very little gain in performance. Also, it still takes a significant amount of energy to produce the hydrogen.
[+] [-] SigmundA|4 years ago|reply
As a comparison a Tesla Model 3 got 975km (606 miles) at 40 km/h (25 mph) [1]. I can't seem to find any range tests at a similar speed as the Nexo.
I found an EPA dyno test for the Model 3 at 77 km/h (48mph) for 708 km (440 miles).
The Nexo and Model 3 have similar dimension and weight and price, while the Nexo advertises 380 miles vs 353 miles.
It doesn't seem like current fuels cell have much of a energy density / range advantage even though hydrogen itself is much more energy dense, the fuel cell weight and efficiency and high pressure liquid hydrogen tanks must be accounted for.
Also fuel cell cars seem to use a buffer battery and have lower power output than BEV's as current fuel cells can't output as much burst power and can't store power from regenerative braking with out a battery somewhere.
Pretty skeptical about hydrogen fuel cells compared to the continued advancement in battery tech.
1.https://electrek.co/2018/05/27/tesla-model-3-range-new-hyper...
Edit: very good efficiency comparison of hydrogen vs batteries by Volkswagen, which to me shows the biggest issue with using hydrogen in cars the "well to wheel" efficiency:
https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/news/stories/2019/08/hydroge...
[+] [-] bjourne|4 years ago|reply
> As a comparison a Tesla Model 3 got 975km (606 miles) at 40 km/h (25 mph) [1]. I can't seem to find any range tests at a similar speed as the Nexo.
> It doesn't seem like current fuels cell have much of a energy density / range advantage even though hydrogen itself is much more energy dense, the fuel cell weight and efficiency and high pressure liquid hydrogen tanks must be accounted for.
I'm curious to know how you come to this conclusion? I don't know much about aerodynamics other than at, as a first order approximation, drag is proportional to the SQUARE of the velocity. Driving 887.5 km at an average speed of 66.9 km/h is, afaict, much more impressive than driving 975 km at 40 km/h.
[+] [-] Mvandenbergh|4 years ago|reply
Hydrogen has a better gravimetric scaling than batteries - as stored energy increases, the fixed weight of the fuel cell is amortised over more energy and the weight of high pressure tanks goes up with their surface area while the energy stores goes up with volume.
So for applications where you want to store a lot of energy and are weight but not volume limited, hydrogen might make enough sense to pay the efficiency penalty required to turn electricity into hydrogen and back again.
That's why it makes more sense for big trucks than it does for passenger cars where volume limitations matter a lot more and where total energy is less.
[+] [-] AtlasBarfed|4 years ago|reply
Even if it offers 20% better range and some allegedly better refuel experience (H2 people keep handwaving that as "solved"), that wouldn't justify the gigantic infrastructure switchover cost.
Electric vehicles can use the grid. That's a massive advantage for infrastructure readiness and scalability, even if the current grid isn't ready for full EV consumer transportation.
EVs can use home solar as well. Easily scalable, adds redundancy and alleviates load to the grid.
H2 would need a huge buildout of hydrogen generators, transporters, refuelling. EVs are so far ahead of all of that.
By the time any significant H2 infrastructure was out there, it'd be 10 years even if they secured 100s of billions in financing yesterday.
In 10 years, the alternative energy / solar / home solar / grid / battery / storage economic proposition is likely to be 50% cheaper in real dollars, and possibly even better.
It's the same problem nuclear faces.
Sure, throw some money at places like aviation or maritime shipping.
But it's just distraction, because I think the oil industry knows that the hydrogen will come from natural gas for the foreseeable (10-40 years) with some "future switchover" to "green hydrogen".
Green hydrogen smacks of "clean coal". Granted the physics/engineering for it are a lot more realizable.
But everyone should see that for the shell game it is.
[+] [-] xiphias2|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thatfrenchguy|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jvanderbot|4 years ago|reply
Being low on joules is a pain when you're going to work in the morning, but it's a royal pain if you have to wait a half hour to charge.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] new_realist|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] KMnO4|4 years ago|reply
From the article:
> The Nexo consumed 6.27kg of H2
For comparison with the other production H2 cars:
Toyota Mirai: 5.6kg
Honda Clarity: 5.0kg
Seems like a promising technology. My understanding is that the current blocker is infrastructure. It’s hard to pressurize up to 10,000 PSI, so many facilities are only able to refill to 60-80% capacity.
[+] [-] _ph_|4 years ago|reply
Also the infrastructure for electricity basically is there, mostly needed are plain outlets at all long-term parking spots. And of course, one can charge an electric car from your own solar.
[+] [-] contriban|4 years ago|reply
"Make it bigger" doesn't really work in cars, otherwise range anxiety wouldn't exist as a concept.
The record still makes sense because the Hyundai Nexo is commercially available and it's not a prototype with a comically-large just for the record tank.
[+] [-] metalliqaz|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway0a5e|4 years ago|reply
Building a system to plumb stuff from A to B at a pressure nobody uses is expensive. Calling up a sales rep and asking for slightly modifications on an existing product line so it can be used with your product is pennies by comparison.
[+] [-] NikolaNovak|4 years ago|reply
1. Significantly different tank sizes - 53L to 70L on regular cars.
2. Different prices of gas (suburbs vs downtown, 87 vs 91 octane, etc)
3. Different habits - some refuel at 1/3 left, 1/4 left, 50km left, yellow light on, needle at the end of the gauge, etc
It drives me absolutely bonkers banana berserk, but... nothing I've been able to do so far :-/
[+] [-] judge2020|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] toast0|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] giantg2|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacquesm|4 years ago|reply
- hydrogen embrittlement
- leakage from whatever container you plan to use
- very low activation energy -> always danger of explosion
So it's a great thing in the lab and to get subsidy for but it sucks for large scale deployment, and deploying it in devices that have a long projected lifespan has its own special class of problems.
Plenty of manufacturers have already had hydrogen test fleets and as far as I'm aware all but a few have been abandoned.
[+] [-] walrus01|4 years ago|reply
People already manage to start fires and cause disaster at gas stations doing something as simple as putting a nozzle into their car and filling it with 87 octane gasoline.
[+] [-] foxyv|4 years ago|reply
It's definitely not ideal, but it's still a fair bit better than the hydrogen options which generally just kind of suck. (3000PSI vs 5000PSI for CNG vs H2) If you can source something to dissolve it in you can also store it as LNG. Busses have been using it for ages now. Although I've seen what happens when an CNG tank goes on those busses and it is scary as heck. I can't imagine a similar issue with hydrogen. That stuff is scary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHf2o9oVY24
[+] [-] alex_young|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sandworm101|4 years ago|reply
Imho I cannot afford to be a market leaders in this field. Until H2 is available everywhere, including at remote locations during Canadian winters, I'll have to stick to gas stations. (I have yet to see any electric car that can handle -50*c.)
[+] [-] hannob|4 years ago|reply
You take natural gas, split it in a process called steam reforming, you get hydrogen and CO2 emissions.
Green hydrogen only exists in very small quantities these days and for many years to come it'll be needed to first replace existing natural gas based hydrogen and to decarbonize industries like steel. There's basically a consensus among energy experts these days that hydrogen in cars is a dead end.
[+] [-] boringg|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] onychomys|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] exitb|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slobiwan|4 years ago|reply
Um, "taken by storm" is a bit of an overstatement. 500 out of 14 million? https://www.statista.com/statistics/196010/total-number-of-r...
[+] [-] mrweasel|4 years ago|reply
Does anyone know what this means: "It purified 449,100 litres of air on the journey – enough for 33 adults to breathe in a day."
Why is the car purifying air while driving? Is this a side effect of hydrogen powered cars?
[+] [-] liquidforce|4 years ago|reply
https://www.altenergymag.com/story/2021/03/can-fuel-cell-tec...
[+] [-] effie|4 years ago|reply
6.3kg of hydrogen consumed means 50 kg of atmospheric oxygen consumed, which is 170 000 liters of air. So it purified 450 000 liters but it also removed oxygen from that same air, around 38% of it. I would not breathe that exhaust air, it may not be CO2 rich, but it sure is oxygen depleted.
[+] [-] Gravityloss|4 years ago|reply
That's also why it's so light, since in H2O, 90% of the weight is the oxygen.
[+] [-] lnsp|4 years ago|reply
(I'm not an expert, but this is how I understood the process.)
[+] [-] IgorPartola|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yonaguska|4 years ago|reply
Anyone have some insights on this? The efficient driving tips that is?
[+] [-] marvin|4 years ago|reply
This might mean slowing down while anticipating stoplight changes, curves or congestion behavior so you can just keep rolling, not accelerating over the top of a hill or entering a decline with excess speed, leaving a good distance to the car in front and so on.
Also knowing the efficiency characteristics of your vehicle. For ICE cars, generally running in high gear/low RPM. Not going fast. Engine braking is also braking, clutch in or shift to neutral while rolling downhill might help. But obviously use engine braking on very long declines, so you don’t burn out your brakes. Prefer regenerative braking rather than mechanical braking in battery vehicles with this feature. This is generally done by changing speed slowly, which requires that you think a few seconds ahead. Don’t accelerate hard if your engine/motor burns more energy than if accelerating slowly.
[+] [-] Dumblydorr|4 years ago|reply
Just think of this. You see some kid in a red sports car at a stop sign. They blast off quickly, then after one block they brake hard for the next stop sign. That's wasting gas, brake pads, and creating more emissions in that area too.
Other than that, accelerate slowly, watch your RPMs, stay around 60 mph, take it easy on hills, there's a lot to it, even without a Prius Regen style battery.
[+] [-] MattRix|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] natch|4 years ago|reply
It also ties the consumer to that fuel system with no other options. You can’t, in other words, fill up at home in your parking spot.
The potential for auto parts profits is high because hydrogen, being the smallest molecule, is notoriously corrosive as it is able to leak through almost any material. And able to bond with many molecules, causing corrosion. So I would expect a lot of degradation over time.
So I guess that’s why Toyota loves this: ongoing parts sales. As a former Toyota owner, I loved the reliability at first, but it was not absolute, and the parts cost for repairs started approaching the cost of car payments as the car got older.
[+] [-] wglb|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] narrator|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomhoward|4 years ago|reply
https://archive.md/iUFAL
[+] [-] beyondcompute|4 years ago|reply
Imagine you are driving and you have several cartridges of magnesium hydride and when you pass by a refueling station a drone catches up with you and swaps nearly-depleted cartridges one by one all while you continue going! How cool is that! B-)
And then you can refuel by stuff that you produce yourself using photo catalyst solar panels in your back yard.
[+] [-] neom|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spuz|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arcticbull|4 years ago|reply
> As of 2020, the majority of hydrogen (∼95%) is produced from fossil fuels by steam reforming of natural gas, partial oxidation of methane, and coal gasification. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production
[+] [-] cookiengineer|4 years ago|reply
Granted, their cars use methanol "fuel" to bind hydrogen, but the car is all electric and uses fuel cells to produce electricity.
For anyone asking whether this is legit: Gumpert was the inventor of AWD/quattro and a long time the Audi Sport engineering lead.
[1] https://www.rolandgumpert.com/en/
[+] [-] manquer|4 years ago|reply
Would be interested to know what makes nexo different to be able to break the record.
[+] [-] King-Aaron|4 years ago|reply
https://jalopnik.com/this-is-what-toyotas-hydrogen-combustio...
[+] [-] ratsmack|4 years ago|reply