Hydrogen has been praised as a fuel of the future that could enable the end of the world’s reliance on fossil fuels and benefit change to net-zero emissions. But for this hydrogen revolution to take place, some big barriers need to be overcome. So is the hype about hydrogen justified?

The most plentiful element in the universe is Hydrogen. It’s necessary for life, the sun is specially made of it and it’s present in almost all alive things. But on earth pure hydrogen is very inadequate. Instead, it mainly exists integrated with oxygen in the form of water. So how does this ample element get turned into a fuel that could help preserve the planet?

Advantages of using hydrogen fuel

One of the advantages of hydrogen in a hydrogen vehicle is the only emission that comes out of the tailpipe is undiluted, drinkable water. In contrast, the internal-combustion engine puts out loads of harmful chemicals and carcinogens. This signifies that as long as the energy used to produce it is sustainable hydrogen can be a certainly green fuel.

How hydrogen fuel is Generated?

The first hydrogen needs to be obtained. This is done by splitting molecules. Hydrogen is a power carrier unlike, petroleum which is a primary power source. To make hydrogen from something requires an input of energy. Methane can be used via a process called steam reforming or a source of electricity through electrolysis. Once you have some hydrogen you can either burn it directly or mix it with oxygen in a fuel cell, which is somewhat like a battery. The reaction in the fuel cell creates electricity and heat. And the mere waste is water.

How hydrogen fuel could be used?

NASA began using hydrogen fuel cells to develop electricity in its space capsules in the 1960s. Today it’s not only considered rocket fuel in space but also for planes, trains, and automobiles. As well as the industrial sector. The most potential early applications are going to be in heavy industry, for example, steel- and cement-making. These are heavy, heavy greenhouse-gas polluters and they ingest tons of energy, a lot of coal in respect. And it’s very challenging to substitute that with electricity which is probably how most of the decarbonization of the global economy will occur.

Why hasn't hydrogen fuel been accepted in past?

This isn’t the foremost time hydrogen has been called the energy of the future. So the question is why has it never taken off? Until renewables existed at scale producing hydrogen required extensive quantities of fossil fuel, or nuclear energy which caused hydrogen both more expensive and less efficient than other ways of storing and delivering energy until climate change moved up the political agenda. Hydrogen simply wasn’t worth it. The existing fossil-fuel infrastructure has been in place for decades. It’s trillions of dollars of invested legacy equipment and the companies that built it defend their assets. And so it makes it very difficult for governments to force that legacy equipment to be pushed aside in favor of radically new rival equipment like hydrogen infrastructure or for that matter, renewable energy.

Is hydrogen fuel safe?

The passengers look down to see the east coast of America gliding by beneath them. There has also been a battle against public perception of hydrogen safety sparked by the Hindenburg disaster in 1937. Within moments there was a tremendous outburst and sharp orange flames formed the backdrop for a tableau of death. Hydrogen gas is very combustible and does need to be stored in a precise way. But fears about its protection are overblown. The Hindenburg did not burst because of the hydrogen it's been authenticated. That’s a misperception and what’s more, the industry has shown that hydrogen vehicles can be safer than internal-combustion vehicle cars that use gasoline which, of course, is an explosive product. Every day hydrogen across the world is used by industry quite safely. 

Advantages of Hydrogen over batteries

One advantage hydrogen has over batteries is that it’s much more energy-dense which means that with a very high-pressure storage system it takes much less space to make a vehicle go any distance. If you have a hydrogen tank on board you can refuel a vehicle quickly compared to batteries and electric cars. But we do have issues with the cost we have issues with refueling stations and fuelling infrastructure that has to be built out. So that’s another obstacle that stands in the way of hydrogen.

Is hydrogen sustainable?

There’s also a question over how sustainable hydrogen is despite some advances in the technology to generate it still requires energy-intensive processes that are fuelled largely by fossil fuels or lots of electricity. The only method to make truly green hydrogen is to produce it using sustainable energy. At the moment, a lot of the hydrogen that’s used in the world is made from natural gas but that does produce some greenhouse-gas emissions. Some people see this as terrible. And other people say this could be a bridge. It can help build a market until there’s enough renewable energy and electrolyzers become more efficient and more cost-effective.

But even if renewable energy is used in the electrolysis process the energy content that comes out is less than what goes in. Which leads some to argue that hydrogen is just a waste of renewable energy. They have a point that there are a bunch of applications in which electricity is the most promising thing to use and more efficient. Whereas there are other applications in the hefty industry especially long-distance transportation, for example where hydrogen could find a niche quite a big niche.

Unlike earlier waves of enthusiasm, hydrogen fuel could be here to stay this time. Technological advancements are causing hydrogen production more efficient and cheaper and this along with the government’s affirmation of decarbonizing is helping push a new hydrogen economy. We see huge improvements in the vehicles or the processes that use hydrogen and we see much more sophistication among the companies that are using it 

According to a study by McKinsey, there are more than 350 large-scale global projects underway right now. The whole investment projected in the hydrogen sector amounts to an evaluated $500billon. Scientific advancements, driving from the laboratories to pilot plants and eventually fetching towards a marketplace because they know a market that will pay for low-carbon techniques or green hydrogen is arriving. 

Germany has declared a €7billon program and the Chinese government wants to include 1 million fuel-cell-powered vehicles on its roadways by 2030.

Will there be a hydrogen revolution in the future years?

When we think about the tools that are needed to get to a net-zero carbon world There’s no doubt that hydrogen will play a role. In the short term, electrification is going to lead to the decarbonization charge. Still longer-term, I think there is great potential for a real hydrogen revolution that would play a big role in a decarbonized society.

Are hydrogen cars possible?

As of 2022, there exist two models of hydrogen cars publicly available in select markets: the Toyota Mirai (2014), which is the world's foremost mass-produced reliable fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV), and the Hyundai Nexo (2018).

 Automakers all agree to place the engine in the front of cars, vans, and trucks, after over a century of innovation. Why do we do this? What about cars where you pop the box? Porches, Volkswagens. What about those cars with the engines in the middle? What about supercars? Rear-engine vehicles represent some of the best-selling and best-performing cars out there.

There exist all kinds of cars in the world. They have various types of engines, characteristics, transmissions,  features, and much more. A lot of people do not know that cars are also segregated based on the placement of their engines. There are mainly 3 types of positioning dynamics. They are Front, Rear, and mid-mounted engines. Let’s see how they stand apart from each other.

Front Engine

Front-engine front-wheel drive vehicles are more tolerant than the steering since the engine's weight is over the front wheels. That gives them more traction. That means it's easier for your less proficient drivers to not spin out on icy roads. It's also more thrifty to cool the engine if it's in the front. So, it's cheaper to fabricate.

Why are most car engines in the front?

Let's go back to the time when in the 19th century, most horseless carriages had rear-mounted engines with rear-wheel drive. In 1895, French automaker Panhard created the foremost front-mounted engine with rear-wheel drive. To execute this, they invented the modern transmission. This design was outstanding compared to the rear-mounted designs at the time because it circulated the weight evenly between the front and rear wheels, which enhanced the handling and gave the front wheels more traction. Front engine rear-wheel-drive evolved to the pinnacle with Ford cranking out 16,500,000 Model T's from 1908 to 1927, and all other car makers obeyed lawsuit.

Rear engine

In 1934, Mercedes Benz looked at engine placement and asked a very German question: "Why don't we try it in the trunk ya?" This rear-end freak fest, produced the model 130h. Czech manufacturer Tatra followed suit and started producing rear-engine cars. The rear-engine design race peaked in 1938 when Volkswagen released the Beetle, designed by Ferdinand Porsche. Yeah, that Porsche. Tatra immediately sued VW, due to the Beetle's similarity to Tatra's rear-engine V570 and 97. 

Volkswagen was able to avoid a lawsuit by Germany that invaded Czechoslovakia. They did wind up paying a settlement after the war though, remember guys, war can't solve all your problems. The VW Beetle was cheap and economical. The original Beetles got 32 miles to the gallon and sold like Animal Crossing in a pandemic. After the victory of the Beetle, Everybody was dabbling with back-row bangers. Rear-engine and rear-wheel-drive cars were great for acceleration since the engine weight was right on the rear tires.

Problems in Rear Engine wheel drive

The main problem though is oversteering. Since all the weight is in the back, tight turns tend to make the rear of the car swing around in a fashion. Many attempted, but few achieved making a rear-engine, rear-wheel-drive vehicle that was handled pleasingly. They rev like a dragster and kind of handle like a dragster. The first real success in that department was the Porsche 911. Yes, that Porsche. The 911 came out in 1964 with a balanced 16-pack. They got around the oversteer problem by keeping the car downward and the wheelbase shorter than the Beetle. 

Some other popular rear-engine vehicles include the DeLorean DMC 12 and the Alpine a110. Not surprisingly, these cars are two-door coupes. Rear-engine, rear-wheel-drive cars, pretty much had to be until the Corvair. It's the only American car with an air-cooled rear engine. An engine that sat behind the rear tires meant no floor bump to get in the way of your feet. The only problem though, is they've had a pretty long wheelbase for rear engine parts. 108 inches, 20 inches longer than the 911. Nevertheless, they sold like beefcakes laced with gravy.

A book that Investigated the entire automotive industry

One buyer was a young politician by the name of Ralph Nader. After driving the car, he became concerned about the car's handling ability. He published the book "Unsafe at any speed" in 1965. The book investigated the entire automotive industry, but was especially critical of the Corvair, calling it, I quote, a "one-car accident". According to the book, The Corvair's swing axle rear suspension would cause the rear tires to quote, and tuck under around turns, which would cause the car to drift. And since the front suspension had no anti-roll bar, the Corvair would be prone to rollovers, a sedan with rollovers. That's insane. By the time the book came out, Chevy had already redesigned the Corvair with a four-wheel independent suspension, but it was too late. "Unsafe at any speed" was a bombshell and people took notice. Corvair sales were cut in half, in 1966. People were afraid to buy rear-engine cars that were Unsafe at any speed. I don't blame them. Chevy decided to move on and produce after the 1969 model year.

And Ralph Nader went on to head for president like a million times. In the meantime, automakers kept messing with front-engine structures. The British Motor Corporation asked a very British question. "Why don't we make our cars as undersized as possible? "So we stay out of other people's away because we're courteous and unassuming and love to prompt." That's my British accent, I'm sorry. That's right. I'm talking about the mini designer Alec Issigonis, who had the bright idea of engineering the transmission into the oil sump, flipping the engine around to minimize the engine footprint, so you could squeeze it under a hood, that was a little over four feet wide. The engine could only make 33 horsepower, but it was enough to power the Brits since the car was so tiny and light.

Rear Mid-Engine transversely-mounted

Transverse engines permitted the hood to be compressed and per passenger space to be maximized inside. Plenty of companies from Fiat, Volvo to even Land Rover use transverse engines, but none as awesomely as a 1965 Lamborghini Miura, which uses a B12 transverse engine mid-mounted behind the two seats. That's right. The transverse engine transformed in six years. Anyway, back in Detroit, the big three we're concentrating on are the front-engine, rear-wheel-drive layout, producing some cars, you might have heard them around like the Mustang, Camaro, Firebird, the Charger, etc. With the engine in the front, there was no danger of oversteering unless you pushed that gas. They have a bit of understeer, but the engine weight improves the front tire traction so it's easier for your average driver to corner.

It's also cheaper and easier to put a radiator in the front of the car, and running hoses to the back sucks from a design efficiency and maintenance standpoint. It makes sense to have your radiator engine in the same place.

Muscle car Era

Thus began the muscle car era, with the big three and AMC trying to cram as much horsepower as possible into a car. But when you want more horsies that usually means a bigger, heavier engine. As engines got beefier. You got a little more power a more torque, yeah.  But less weight on the back wheels decreases rear-wheel traction and acceleration. To keep some weight on the back tires, you have to move the engine further back and push the passengers back towards the rear axle and you're left with an enormous hood. I'm talking 80s Camaro, 70s Firebird, 70s Chargers, and pretty much every muscle car ever. If you push the engine far enough back, you get a front-mid engine car.

Mid Engine

If the engine is between the front axle and the passenger compartment, it's technically mid-engine, but front mid-engine. If you're already sacrificing passenger area and want to maximize power and handling, you have to rethink engine placement. Take the Corvette, for instance, the C7 Corvette was the best front-engine rear-wheel-drive car that Chevy could design. But they're ultimately delivering the mid-engine Corvette. It's called the CA. Not only does it offer up to 700 horsepower.

Why does moving the Corvette's engine back, improve handling? 

With the engine behind the two front seats, but in front of the rear axle, the Corvette's center of gravity is in the middle of the car, which means a lower polar moment of inertia. Alright, the polar moment of inertia. Think about a figure skater spinning. When they pull their arms in, they spin more quickly. Think about you sitting in an office chair revolving around, when you pull your arms in you communicate faster, and if you can put your arms and legs out you spin slower. Why is that? The same principle applies to cars. If your car's center of mass is centrally located, it can change direction fast and with less struggle. The engine layout also improves braking. With the weight of the engine spread evenly across all four tires, all four brakes help equally. That's why mid-engine vehicles are the best-handling, most costly two-seat vehicles on the planet. You've BMW IA's, your Audi R8's, a Porsche Cayman's, most Ferraris and Lamborghinis, McLaren's lotus, or is it low tide? 

Summary

To sum it up, let's run down the pros and cons of each engine location. The rear engine has great acceleration, but there's less weight on the front tires. You're more likely to Tokyo Drift if you don't know what you're doing. Mid-engine, awesome handling, and braking but no room for extra passengers or luggage. And generally, they're expensive to ship.

Front-engine, they're prone to a bit of understeer, but maximum traction on the front tires. They're spacious and they're cheap to build. Automakers have verified that they can create rear and mid-engine designs that work pretty well. But most consumers want an entire second row of seats and they typically don't need all that performance for driving the children to Chilies. They offer a cheaper, more spacious front-engine car that's good enough. The front-engine cars have one, at least for now.

Some other popular:

Front-engine vehicles include Toyota, TATA, Maruti Suzuki, Hyundai, etc.

Rear-engine vehicles include: Porsche

Mid-engine vehicles include: Ferrari, Lamborgini

Reference: Donut Media

What are your experiences with steering rear-engine cars?

Do you have an engine placement preference?