• Feb 26th 2011 at 1:00PM
  • 12
Kia Borrego FCEV - Click above for high-res image gallery

Kia Motors has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Clean Energy Partnership (CEP) to promote fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV) and the establishment of supporting infrastructure in Europe. The initial agreement was inked in Seoul, South Korea, with Hyun Soon Lee, head of research and development at Hyundai-Kia, Klaus Bonhoff, managing director of NOW GmbH, and Patrick Schnell, chairman of the Clean Energy Partnership, in attendance.

Kia intends to join the Clean Energy Partnership by the end of 2011, but some details regarding the automaker's level of involvement must be worked out before the agreement becomes official.

Both Hyundai and Kia are established players in the automotive fuel cell vehicle segment. Last January, Kia announced that a test fleet of FCEVs would hit the road in Europe and Hyundai reportedly remains on track to release its fuel cell vehicle to the public in 2012.




I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 12 Comments
      • 4 Years Ago
      "Release a fuel cell vehicle to the public in 2012".

      Translation: We'll produce a handful of leased test vehicles in selected markets.
      • 4 Years Ago
      A fuel cell car not only resembles an EV, but is an EV in it's components other than the power stack and ancillaries, which is why Nissan does not distinguish in it's development since most of the work on electric components etc can be used in either.

      I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make when you talk of them from an energy standpoint, as both vary according to the source for their hydrogen or electricity charging the battery.
      A battery charged by electricity produced by burning natural gas would seem to me to differ little to one running fuel cells on reformed natural gas, and similarly one running on nuclear
      or hydro power would also seem to differ little to one where the hydrogen is produced by electrolysis from the same sources.

      I am also not clear as to why you would think they would be interested in hiding the fact that these are fuel cell vehicles, as the animus against them is confined to some battery advocates on sites like this.
      Providing the fuel is affordable most folk would likely prefer a fuel cell vehicle, as it is more similar to a conventional car and doesn't have the same range limitations once the infrastructure is built out, so there is no reason for them to seek to hide anything.
        • 4 Years Ago
        I still can't get my head around either why you feel the distinction is important, or why or how you think it is being disguised.
        FCEV is pretty clear, I would have thought, and support for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles remains pretty robust in most places, as folks who dislike it continually complain.
        In France there might be some point in the distinction, as most electricity comes from nuclear, but in the US etc where most electricity is from coal and gas then it is not clear, to me at least, why it is important.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Well, even if the terms have more importance than I can see, we certainly have no way of ensuring that others conform to our own notions of the proper usage.
        GM will no doubt continue to refer to their vehicles as EREV, and Hyundai to theirs as FCEV if they happen to feel like it.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Electron:
        OK, I think I understand a little how you feel. It's perhaps a bit like the furore about EREVs vs PHEVs and so on.
        I doubt essentially minor issues like this are going to make much real difference.
        If fuel cell vehicles can be made for around the $50k that Hyundai and Toyota say by around 2015 then they will do fine for uses where their range counts and for heavier vehicles.
        If they don't then they will stay in very specialist niches.
        electronx16
        • 4 Years Ago
        oops, misplaced....

        David Martin: One of the reason's I feel it's important to distinguish HV's from EV's is that I feel the way HV's are promoted as a specific type of EV's it got the chance to become the cuckoo's young in the EV nest. Politicians spend most resources to feed this bogus EV while true EV development (batteries!!) was historically starved for funds. If you insist on pointing out energy sources outside the vehicle: HV's are in practice just an elaborate, impractical, inefficient and expensive way of driving on natural gas.

        For the rest: I can't make my point any clearer than I already did. I know it probably sounds a bit theoretical and nerdy but it's amazing that despite all the discussion that's going on about EV's there is still so much confusion about what really constitutes an electric vehicle and interest groups seem to take advantage of that.
        electronx16
        • 4 Years Ago
        David Martin: I think proper definitions for our favourite topics are more than minor issues... The EREV conundrum you mentioned illustrates that. Is the Volt a "proper" EV? Using the "what goes in the tank"definition this question is easy to answer (or at least it was before "Voltgate"): it's an EV for 40 miles, after that it's a gas powered vehicle. Of course since the Voltgate affair the answer is a bit more complex since at high speeds there is this direct contribution of the gasoline powered engine to the wheels making it an EV and gas powered vehicle at the same time even before the juice from the grid runs low, but there you go....
        electronx16
        • 4 Years Ago
        David Martin: My point was not that they try to hide the "FC" fact obviously, since that part is still in FCEV, only the nasty H part seems to be missing from the acronym while the cuddly EV part was added. There is a PR issue here because doubt about the whole hydrogen hype isn't actually confined to a bunch of green blog commentators, as you know even mainstream politicians like energy secretary Steven Chu are trying to stop funding for this dud at this point (okay, so he is a Nobel price winning scientist, so maybe not your average politician).

        It's a bit weird that you don't get the importance of classifying vehicles according to their primary on board energy source. It's not as if this blog you spent so much time on is about solving a drivetrain problem; it's all about energy. So the fact that it's an EV-ish electric motor that drives the wheels in a HFCV is not that interesting, the fact that it's ultimate on board power source is hydrogen is. Clearly if you follow the energy chain outside the scope of the vehicle you will find that even a Hummer is through the fossil fuels it uses eventually solar powered (photo synthesis and all that...) but that's not the point. The point is the form in which the energy enters the vehicle because that determines the problems and possibilities involved, hence my preference of classifying vehicles according to their primary on board power source or to put in simple "what goes into the tank/energy storage system".
        electronx16
        • 4 Years Ago
        Alas...
      electronx16
      • 4 Years Ago
      David Martin: One of the reason's I feel it's important to distinguish HV's from EV's is that I feel the way HV's are promoted as a specific type of EV's it got the chance to become the cuckoo's young in the EV nest. Politicians spend most resources to feed this bogus EV while true EV development (batteries!!) was historically starved for funds. If you insist on pointing out energy sources outside the vehicle: HV's are in practice just an elaborate, impractical, inefficient and expensive way of driving on natural gas.

      For the rest: I can't make my point any clearer than I already did. I know it probably sounds a bit theoretical and nerdy but it's amazing that despite all the discussion that's going on about EV's there is still so much confusion about what really constitutes an electric vehicle and interest groups seem to take advantage of that.
      electronx16
      • 4 Years Ago
      "FCEV"? Clever way to work the "H"out of "HFCV" and work the much more sympathetic "EV" in! However, the term "fuel cell electric vehicle" is deceptive. It suggests the vehicle uses electrons as primary on board energy source which it doesn't because obviously hydrogen is the primary on board energy source of vehicles like this (and looking beyond the scope of the vehicle it's usually natural gas, but that's irrelevant for determining the energy category of the vehicle itself). From a drivetrain viewpoint this technology may resemble an EV, from an energy viewpoint (which is the whole point of vehicles like this) this is not an EV; it's an HV. So please ditch the "FCEV" smokescreen and stick with "HFCV"!
      • 4 Years Ago
      :)
    Share This Photo X