Hyperion XP-1 Is a 221-MPH Hydrogen-Powered Hypercar

Horsepower = 2,038
0-60mph i= 2.25 seconds
Top Speed = 221mph
Recharge = 3-5 mins
Range = 1000+ ,miles per charge

Those are off-the-charts impressive numbers. It doesn't use gasoline, and its made in California, so it will be rejected and opposed by the usual suspects, but it opens the doors to hydrogen energy.

Hyperion XP-1 Is a 221-MPH Hydrogen-Powered Hypercar
The XP-1 is claimed to go from zero to 60 mph in 2.2 seconds, but it's really a hook for a much bigger story: hydrogen infrastructure.
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a33572419/2022-hyperion-xp-1-hydrogen-hypercar-specs/

• Hyperion Motors has been working on a hydrogen-powered hypercar for almost 10 years, saying it's building the car in part to promote a hydrogen energy infrastructure.
• The Hyperion XP-1, coming in 2022, has a claimed 2.2-second zero-to-60-mph time and a 221-mph top speed. It also offers 1000-plus miles of range before refueling.
• Hyperion says it plans to build its own network of refill stations for hydrogen cars similar to the Tesla Supercharger network for EVs.

 

There is also toyota mirai, a regular production series car.
Toyota made a huge bet with hydrogen powered cars, decades ago.
Hydrogen powered cars are old story, the problem is the infrastructure needed

 

I can't help but wonder how much fossil is required to extract hydrogen from water.

 

Hydrogen can be generated using many sources, including nuclear. Currently in US the source is natural gas.

Your instant appeal to fossil fuels has been noted.

The manufacturer claims they will create the infrastructure, and if the cars have 1000+ mile range they won't need as many as gas powered cars.

 

So you don't have the answer. Noted.

 

Was there a question mark somewhere?

You said you wonder how much fossil fuels is used to generate hydrogen, and I said it can be generated using many sources, including nuclear. Currently in US the source is natural gas.

What is your complaint?

 

Argumentative and unrelated.

 

He's mad because Hydrogen power sounds liberal.

 

But he is liberal. He thinks generating hydrogen is conservative and he is mad at that I guess.

 

I was talking about you.

 

Yes, and I knew the usual suspects would not be happy about it. Everything is political to them, so we get the knee-jerk reaction.

 

Hydrogen would be perfect for long haul trucking and the industrial sector, as electric vehicles in those sectors have clear drawbacks that will make adoption impossible, basically until we develop viable solid state batteries.

For performance cars electric is fast taking over. For weekend pleasure drives range and payload isn't really an issue, so the performance benefits of electric start to make sense.

It's going to get to the point where even the best V12 engines feel sluggish and underpowered compared to electric performance vehicles.

For long haul, commercial, and even dual cab vehicles hydrogen seems like a good alternative - where range, payload and refill time are absolutely critical to profitability.

 

The idea of hydrogen cars could possibly be the number one reason why Japanese and European car manufacturers are handing their market share to battery-power China.
Sandy Munro puts the Chinese electric invasion of USA at 2024 or 2025. Ten years after this no ICE car will be sold in Europe, or CA. The only car company that has any chance will be Tesla.

 

I've heard that producing hydrogen is very inefficient and is quite dirty.

It's a cool concept, but I don't see a future for it other than being a cool oddity

 

"Patt's objection is that hydrogen functions as an energy carrier, rather than an energy source, and can be created in three ways. Gray hydrogen, which is the most commonly produced, creates carbon dioxide and methane emissions, which is pretty much the opposite of eco-friendly. Blue hydrogen is made from natural gas, which is also a crummy long term solution. And green hydrogen doesn't direct produce emissions — but you need electricity to make it, so in Patt's analysis, why not just use renewable electricity directly instead?"

https://futurism.com/the-byte/professor-hydrogen-cars-bad-idea

 

Very little

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_hydrogen

You can make hydrogen from renewables, so just the carbon footprint of the renewable infrastructure, which is probably far less than the carbon footprint of the EV battery market.

So I suppose those who champion co2 reduction would embrace hydrogen over EV's.

 

Any ol' electricity will do.

 

It is not very efficient when compared to simply burning fossil fuel. But its probably pretty efficient compared to burning fossil fuel to generate electricity thats then pushed hundreds of miles through leaky high tension wires and stored in an inefficient chemical battery, for example. But its as clean or dirty as whatever is used to make the electricty. Hydrogen is extracted from water simply by running an electric current through water and collecting the gas off the anode (or was it the cathode... one of them). The benefit is that fuel sources otherwise unsuitable for powering a vehicle, like coal, solar or nuclear, or even a wood fired steam engine if one were so inclined, can be used to make hydrogen, which is more storable and portable than chemical batteries and requires far less adaption for most vehicles on the road today. Kits that turn any carbeurated motor into a LNG/LPG powered motor have been around for decades, and from there its just a matter of retuning the air mixture for hydrogen. Most vehicles would be able to swap over to run on H without replacing the motor. And as a side benefit, hydrogen has a more energetic explosion than gasoline, so one could expect a boost in HP (or, I suppose, a boost in efficiency?). And the exhaust would just be water vapor (prolly with a little engine oil in it...).

As stated previously, the primary hangup is infrastructure. Storing hundreds of thousands of gallons of compressed hydrogen is ...well, potentially devastating if it explodes. Though the same is true with LNG/LPG, and we do that all the time everywhere... BLEVEs are rare, but they're also the most destructive explosions recorded outside nuclear weapons. So nothing new. Its really just a matter of creating the market.

 

Its also completely renewable. If we electrolosized all the worlds water and then burned it, we'd be left with all the worlds water again. Unless we burned it in space, I guess.

 

Most of which comes from fossil fuels. In addition to that...
"The process of producing hydrogen, compressing it, and then turning that compressed hydrogen back into electricity or mechanical energy is grossly inefficient, according to Paul Martin, a chemical process development expert and member of the Hydrogen Science Coalition.

"It's worth putting up with a lot of problems with a battery because for every one joule you put in, you get 90% of it back. That's pretty great," Martin told CNBC. In producing and storing hydrogen, you get only 37% of the energy back out. "So 63% of the energy that you said, is lost. And that's best case.""

So you're burning 53% more fossil to make something when an ol battery will do just fine.

 

How will you get all the electricity to do this? Even if the whole energy grid becomes green and and efficient, you're still be loosing 63% in the process. As opposed to just storing electricity in batteries, which looses 10%

 

You have it backwards

The process of producing hydrogen, compressing it, and then turning that compressed hydrogen back into electricity or mechanical energy is grossly inefficient, according to Paul Martin, a chemical process development expert and member of the Hydrogen Science Coalition.

"It's worth putting up with a lot of problems with a battery because for every one joule you put in, you get 90% of it back. That's pretty great," Martin told CNBC. In producing and storing hydrogen, you get only 37% of the energy back out. "So 63% of the energy that you said, is lost. And that's best case."

 

Is natural gas dirty? Besides it can be made from multiple sources, including nuclear and renewables. Obviously it still has a long way to go until it benefits the society as whole, but I'm glad they are working to advance the industry

 

??? So is it an electric car or Hydrogen combustion? Probably electric.

 

thats 10% right away, and more the longer the batt sits unused.

The great thing about renewables is that their effeciency only matters relative to infrastructure because thats the only factor in scarcity. If we had a planetary infrastructure dedicated to collecting and storing hydrogen instead of fossil fuels, no one would gaf about how much of it is lost to inneficiency (also we'd have had more incentive to find more efficient collection methods- certain voltages and salinities are more efficient in electrolosis, for exampe). We could turn all the worlds water to H and burn it and be left with all the worlds water again. No one complains about all the sunlight 'wasted' hitting the desert. If we used it to generate H, it would be a net positive, so even if it was 99% inefficient, it wouldn't matter, AFTER the cost of the panels are made back of course.

Batteries are just as terrible of a long term energy storage solution as ethanolized gasoline. Especially rechargeable batteries. Go charge up your tesla and stick in your garage for 6 months, then tell me how much charge it kept (honestly, I wanna know, maybe its better than I think, but in my experience with batteries, it'll be about dead)