Hyundai To Build a 300-Mile-Per-Charge Electric Car (reuters.com)

On Thursday, Hyundai Motor said it will launch a long-range electric vehicle with a driving range of 500 km (311 miles) per charge after 2021. The company is reportedly planning 31 eco-friendly models by 2020, up from a previously flagged 28. Reuters reports: The South Korean automaker is planning to launch an electric sedan under its high-end Genesis brand in 2021 with a range of 500 km (310 miles) per charge. It will also introduce an electric version of its Kona small sport utility vehicle (SUV) with a range of 390 km in the first half of next year. The automaker and affiliate Kia Motors Corp, which together rank fifth in global vehicle sales, also said they were adding three plug-in vehicles to their plans for eco-friendly cars, bringing the total to 31 models by 2020. Underscoring Hyundai's electric shift, those plans include eight battery-powered and two fuel-cell vehicles -- a contrast to its 2014 announcement for 22 models, of which only two were slated to be battery-powered. Hyundai also confirmed a Reuters report that it is developing its first dedicated electric vehicle platform, which will allow the company to produce multiple models with longer driving ranges.

Comments

Isn't the real news the fuel cell?

[blindseer]

The headline is over an electric car that has the same range as a gasoline car since... forever? Not impressed.

Later in that article though is a bit about how hydrogen fuel cells might come to market. I think that hydrogen as a fuel is a terrible idea but the idea that a fuel cell might be cheap and durable enough for a passenger car would be news.

Electric cars and hydrogen fuel cells are all about the supposed "addiction" to fossil fuels, and the damage it may (or may not) be doing to the environment. There is nothing inherently wrong with the internal combustion engine. The problem is in the fuel. Or rather how we get it currently.

The US Navy is developing a means to produce hydrocarbon fuels from seawater. If that gets cheap enough then it can be scaled up effectively infinitely. It's not like we're going to run out of seawater. When the fuel is burned it gets turned back into the water and CO2 it came from. It closes the loop on water and carbon, and there's no sulfur or anything in the fuel, unless put there in the process.

I guess I know why this isn't getting proper funding or the headlines it deserves. The problem is the process is powered by nuclear reactors. It doesn't have to but it does take a lot of electricity. Kind of like the electricity to charge those electric cars, or to produce the hydrogen for fuel cells. The difference is that it can be stored and transported like the fossil fuels we use already. Very little new infrastructure needed.

Maybe that's a problem too. Senators can't spend government money on new infrastructure in their state if the new fuel doesn't need infrastructure, no one can buy votes that way. Oh, and NUCLEAR BAD!! Because strip mining the planet for rare earth metals to make windmills, batteries, and solar panels has NO IMPACT on the environment. On the other hand we could take our fuel from seawater (including the uranium) and use the byproducts (like fresh water, oxygen gas, and sea salt) to feed industry and feed people. Nothing to lose there but your precious government subsidies.

Since senators can't buy votes without subsidies then it's not likely to happen any time soon.

Oh, and another thing. Another potential byproduct of this seawater-to-fuel process is hydrogen gas. We could use that for those fuel cells. Again I think hydrogen is a terrible fuel outside of sending rockets to space but if fuel cells are going to be a thing then we need nuclear power to make that happen. Using fossil fuels to make hydrogen kind of defeats the purpose, using wind or solar would take far too much land, so nuclear is where it must come from.