worlds first production hydrogen car - Honda FCX clarity

[Inodoro Pereyra]

Onlytrueromeo, Ryan: I don't want to keep on hijacking this thread with the ethanol discussion (I know I started it. Sorry)
When you increase the compression ratio of an engine, the thermal efficiency of that engine also increases. A normal gasoline, fuel injected engine has a typical thermal efficiency of about 30%, give or take. When you increase the CR, that efficiency climbs sharply. That's the reason why an ethanol ready engine has a better mileage than a gas engine. Again, this has been tested.
Also, E85 is not pure ethanol. It's ethanol with 15% regular gas. E100 is pure ethanol.

Anyways, I know ethanol and biodiesel are partial solutions, but they're solutions we can implement NOW.
Maybe the future is electric. Maybe it's solar. Who knows?
One thing is for sure: it's not hydrogen.

Also, Ryan, I understand it's difficult to see a car spewing water vapor by its exhaust as an environmental problem. But think about a billion of them, and you'll start to see the problem.

You have to understand car companies do research on hydrogen because it gives them tax cuts, besides the "cool factor". That doesn't mean hydrogen is a valid alternative.

[wytbishop]

Hydrogen isn't consumed in the process of developing the electricity which drives the engine. When it leaves the tail pipe it's still hydrogen...it's just ganging up in pairs on a poor oxygen molecule.

It is possible to make hydrogen efficiently. Right now the technology is very expensive, but the emergence of these kinds of cars will drive the price of hydrogen generators down. Right now you can outfit yourself with a complete self contained hydrogen fueling station for about $1M. Generation costs depend on the cost of electricity in your area, but the baseline is set at $8/kg. That million dollar station can support 15-20 cars @ 12kg/day. Is it the most cost effective way to power your car? no. But if you're a city with a smog problem, converting all your public vehicles to H2 will have a significant impact on air quality. The cost savings from that are difficult to calculate, but for now it's a question of what you value most. And it's only going to get cheaper.

No batteries to discard, reasonable performance and range, and zero emissions. This is the future for automobiles.

Sorry, you're wrong. Click on the first link, and take the tour. About 50 seconds into it, they say "leaving only clean water vapor behind".
Also, I don't know what you mean by a "poor hydrogen molecule". There's no such thing. If 2 atoms of hydrogen "paired up", the resulting molecule would be deuterium, not "poor hydrogen".

Also, the cost of producing hydrogen is not an economic cost. There are today 2 economically viable ways to produce hydrogen: one, by steam reforming of natural gas, produces as much pollution as using gasoline, or more, and has the same availability problems in the long term, and the other one, by electrolysis of water, takes more than 3 times the energy the produced hydrogen can deliver. In both cases, a losing proposition.

EDIT: I forgot. About the car being good for high smog cities, sure. If you want to switch your smog problem for a rampaging humidity and temperature problem, hydrogen cars can be an option.

TANSTAAFL.

You wanna disagree with me because you think you know what's what that's fine. I respectfully request that you do so without being an a--hole.

Fact: I did not say "poor hydrogen molecule". I jokingly said "Poor oxygen molecule". I also took Chemistry in university.

Fact: I did not claim that making hydrogen was "an economical cost"...I said..."Is it the most cost effective way to power your car? no." but I went on to say that there are other factors which may be of greater value to you than the cost of running hydrogen.

Fact: Smarter guys than you figure hydrogen fuel cells are worth some effort.

For what it's worth, though I'm clearly not as smart as you, I do not subscribe to your "Positive Feedback" water vapor theory. But I suppose time will tell.

Right or wrong you're acting like a douche. Lose the attitude.

[onlytrueromeo]

Technically Ryan, tides are caused by the moon, and wind, while originating from convection, is also caused by the rotation of the earth

I do agree with you though, taking energy from the sun is our best bet. I am against wind power as a solution to all energy needs, but I understand that it is helping now, and for that it is good. Ocean turbines would be much more efficient since water is SO much more dense than air, even tho water moves less - the problem is that putting these in the ocean would affect the environment much more so than windmills, even if they did produce larger amounts of energy per capita.

Fusion is still far off, but would be a nice thing to have...Right now they're perfecting a fusion/fission hybrid process to melt down radioactive waste, since the US and Russia have stupid stockpiles of it. It would be a self sustaining process where 30% of the energy created goes back to pushing the reaction. Another technology we also have right now is the use of plasma to melt down garbage - nearly ANY type of garbage, including nuclear waste. This is also a self sustaining process that creates thermal energy, hydrogen and other gasses that could be used for fuel cells, and an "obsidian like" material. There's not much known about the material yet. (These aren't the crack-job ideas like cold fusion or the lower energy state hydrogen atom)

I'm not claiming to know all, but I do make it a point to keep up on current tech. whenever I can by reading popular mechanics and science, geek websites and talking with fellow students and graduates at my university. Personally, I think that most of the people doing the debate over these technologies are not intelligent enough to understand any of them, and most of the general public could either care less or are in the same boat as the politicians and media analysts.

Please, lets not let this turn into a female dog fest.

[wytbishop]

...the people doing the debate over these technologies are not intelligent enough to understand any of them...

We have a winner.

[Nd4SpdSe]

I honestly can't see the emissions from hydrogen cars affecting the climate. Since when did humidity hurt anything? It will condense overnight and get below ground like any other humidity.

Anything we do will affect it, it doesn't matter how. Hydrogen, electric, oil, ethanol, diesel will all affect the planet in a negative way in their own ways. It's all about the ignorants and their power to push what they want in their benefit, and convincing people to believe the same.

Geez, we can't even have wind turbine generators without someone raising a stink over killing birds and affect water currents (for the off-shore farms).

The only no-harm solution would be a pure no-battery solar car

[Inodoro Pereyra]

Wytbishop:my sincerest apologies for hurting your feelings. I did misread your statement, my bad.
So you say you wrote that "jokingly"... I'll take your word for it.
Anyways, just as a suggestion, you might want to put a smilie when you talk "jokingly". You know, for those who may think you were being purposefully misleading, and maybe for those who didn't have chemistry at the University. Just a suggestion...
You're right, you didn't say the cost of hydrogen was economical. You just went ahead and cited ONLY the economical cost of a hydrogen setup. Not only that, but you cited ONLY the cost of a mini station capable of serving a fistful of cars a day. That is like saying that to become a corn producer you need a pot and a bag of soil.

But you're right: a lot of people much smarter than me think hydrogen is a valid alternative. A lot of people much smarter than me also think hybrids are the future, or that Joseph Newman's machine works. I guess that only shows that intelligence without knowledge can only take you so far...

To all: my apologies if anybody felt insulted by any of my statements. I have been following very closely the research on hydrogen and many other alternative technologies for more than 3 decades, and it's very frustrating to see people's understanding of the problem and its possible solutions hasn't evolved a bit.
Ever since the early '70s (that I know of), there's been non stop research on several different hydrogen technologies, from the use of metal hydrides for storage, bacteria for on board production, liquid hydrogen, and a long list of other ideas. None worked. And the reason none of them worked is very simple: the energy is just not there. Doesn't matter how you twist it, even if hydrogen didn't create a host of other problems that remain to be solved, the fact is that hydrogen's energy density is only 0.3% that of gasoline, and that it takes enormous amounts of energy to be extracted.

Onlytrueromeo: you're absolutely right: solar and fusion would (could?) be the solution. However, to date, the technologies are still not ready. I remember in the '80s, when amorphous silicon solar cells were developed, with a 15% efficiency. Everybody was very excited, saying that cells capable of delivering a 25% efficiency (which was considered the minimum for a viable solar technology) were just around the corner. Well, today, more than 20 years later, the technology is still around the corner. Same with fusion.
Who knows? Maybe a week from now somebody will develop a super cell, and we'll all be looking at this thread and laughing. Maybe. But, so far, it's just a pipe dream.

[wytbishop]

Still being a bit of a d--- there aren't you? Yes I think you are.

I cited an example of a mini station but in no way implied that it represents the solution to the any of the problems surrounding the issue. In fact my intent was to imply that "Hey...if you're rich you can stick a $1million mini hydrogen station in your back yard and never buy gas again." ~~insert smiley here~~ I suppose I should be more obvious. ~~insert shoulder shrug guy~~

I fail to see how "ganging up in pairs on a poor oxygen molecule" is anything but an attempt at levity.

I think that there are 2 glaring issues surrounding alternate fuels. First, we all know and love internal combustion. It has seen us through our youth and many of us well into adulthood. We understand it and find it comforting. It works. It is natural therefore to meet any new contender with skepticism and distrust. To the point of searching for and even manufacturing flaws so that we may retreat to the comforting loving arms of our familiar internal combustion engines. Such is human nature.

The other is to assume that Honda or any other manufacturer believes that this is the car that will solve the problem and usher us into a new age of alternate fuel vehicles. It's not and I can assure you that they know it's not. If they thought that it was they would be mass producing them and pushing hydrogen fueled cars and hydrogen technology to any smog addled country on earth that would listen...and they'd get action too. There's a prototype car in Japan that you pour water into the fuel tank it electrolyses it and supplies the hydrogen fuel cell and boom, you can go for like an hour on a litre of water or something. Sounds like the answer right??? So where is it? I don't know. But people are trying stuff and something's going to catch.

If you want to see change you have to try stuff. It won't always work the way you thought or hoped it would, but what we're doing now isn't working either. So you try stuff and see how it goes. And that effort probably sparks new ways of thinking and who knows, maybe in 10 years you wind up with something that actually works and doesn't cook the Earth like a pot roast.

Now I'm going to go cry on the edge of my bed.

[Inodoro Pereyra]

Still being a bit of a d--- there aren't you? Yes I think you are.

You seem to believe your opinion of me keeps me up at night. That'd be your first mistake. I've had to deal with many like you in the past, pulling "data" right off their a55, and, when confronted, resorting to ad hominem attacks to try and save face. Sorry, it doesn't work.

I cited an example of a mini station but in no way implied that it represents the solution to the any of the problems surrounding the issue. In fact my intent was to imply that "Hey...if you're rich you can stick a $1million mini hydrogen station in your back yard and never buy gas again." ~~insert smiley here~~ I suppose I should be more obvious. ~~insert shoulder shrug guy~~

Of course you didn't. You just cited ONLY that example, and let everybody imply what they wanted. Skillful writing though. Just not skillful enough.

I fail to see how "ganging up in pairs on a poor oxygen molecule" is anything but an attempt at levity.

You fail to see... That would be your second mistake.

I think that there are 2 glaring issues surrounding alternate fuels. First, we all know and love internal combustion. It has seen us through our youth and many of us well into adulthood. We understand it and find it comforting. It works. It is natural therefore to meet any new contender with skepticism and distrust. To the point of searching for and even manufacturing flaws so that we may retreat to the comforting loving arms of our familiar internal combustion engines. Such is human nature.

That could actually be a good, compelling argument. Unfortunately, the most rejected use of hydrogen as a fuel is precisely on internal combustion engines, and rightly so, even when the use of other fuels, line CNG, ethanol, or butanol has never been disputed and CNG and ethanol have been used successfully on ICEs for decades.
You can twist it all you want, but the indisputable fact is that hydrogen is not a viable alternative fuel. It doesn't have the energy, it damages metals, it's expensive to process, and it's difficult to store, among other things, and no amount of ranting or "levity" will change that.

The other is to assume that Honda or any other manufacturer believes that this is the car that will solve the problem and usher us into a new age of alternate fuel vehicles. It's not and I can assure you that they know it's not. If they thought that it was they would be mass producing them and pushing hydrogen fueled cars and hydrogen technology to any smog addled country on earth that would listen...and they'd get action too.

Oh, I know damn well Honda (or any other car manufacturer) doesn't believe the hype about hydrogen. But what they believe is irrelevant. It's what customers believe that's dangerous.
As far as I'm concerned, they can try and invent a car powered by good wishes, if they feel like it.

There's a prototype car in Japan that you pour water into the fuel tank it electrolyses it and supplies the hydrogen fuel cell and boom, you can go for like an hour on a litre of water or something. Sounds like the answer right??? So where is it? I don't know. But people are trying stuff and something's going to catch.

More BS. On board electrolysis is even less viable than hydrogen as a fuel. There are 2 options here: either you're implying that you can have a fully autonomous car that can produce its own hydrogen with the only addition of water, which is IMPOSSIBLE, because it directly collides with the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics (and no amount of "outside the box thinking" can go past them), or you're talking about an externally charged electric car, that uses the electricity to produce hydrogen to then power the engine, which would be one of the stupidest ways one could possibly come up to waste energy. Simple, the car would run better by just using the electricity directly. And you, of all people, should be well aware of this. I mean, that is if you also had physics class at the university.
That, of course, assuming you didn't say it "jokingly"...

If you want to see change you have to try stuff. It won't always work the way you thought or hoped it would, but what we're doing now isn't working either. So you try stuff and see how it goes. And that effort probably sparks new ways of thinking and who knows, maybe in 10 years you wind up with something that actually works and doesn't cook the Earth like a pot roast.

No sir. That's exactly the kind of BS the "water for fuel" crowd promotes.
If you want to see real change, you experiment things BASED ON ACTUAL SCIENCE, not wishful thinking. Otherwise you're just wasting time.

Now I'm going to go cry on the edge of my bed.

I think hitting a book would be a better use of your time. But that's just me...

[Flyer]

Children, play nice or your second-born child is mine...third-born if the second-born is ugly...

[Inodoro Pereyra]

Flyer: I can't get past your sig line. Mind if I borrow it?

[wytbishop]

You really, REALLY don't get me man. You actually managed to miss every point I tried to make in my post. Even when I tried to just chat a little, you made it into a fight.

What did I say that made you think, that I think you care about my opinion? I don't and I would be stupid to think that you did. I thought you were acting like a bit of a jerk, summarily dismissing everyone's opinions and in not too friendly a way so I said so. I had hoped that you would just realize that we try not to act that way on this forum and maybe tone it down a bit. But you came back at me like we're in some sort of internet flame war. I said so again and then tried to just make some general interest comments regarding people's feelings toward the topic and things that I think are pertinent but again you interpret that as a further attack on you.

Dude...we're just talking here. Just a bunch of guys hangin' out and chatting about stuff. I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I don't think you're an idiot. I'm sure you are much more thoroughly read on the subject than I am. I'm just saying what I have to say. I don't understand your siege mentality.

Anyway, I'm done trying to explain myself and make peace. It doesn't seem to work.

I think that the Hydrogen powered car is a good thing. I don't necessarily think it's the answer, but I think it's an important step. I'm glad that mainstream companies are devoting their resources to development of alternative fuel vehicles. I do believe you have to try stuff, even if it doesn't work exactly as you hoped it would.

I'm gonna go plant a tree now, even though I know it's a waste of time...and cry a little more.

[Inodoro Pereyra]

You really, REALLY don't get me man. You actually managed to miss every point I tried to make in my post. Even when I tried to just chat a little, you made it into a fight.

You really do not get me.

On the contrary, I DO get you quite well.
For example, after I rebutted all your prior "points", now, you're the "victim", and this is some kind of vendetta.
Never mind that I don't know you, not even from another forum. Never mind that we have never argued before. I just have some kind of a beef with you.
So now, even when I limited myself (more or less) to argue the aforementioned "points", while it was YOU who spend his time calling me all sort of names, I'M the one making it "into a fight".

Like I said, I've seen this before, you wouldn't believe how many times, in how many different forums.

So let me be REALLY clear: I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH YOU. I'm just a firm believer in that, when one doesn't have anything to say, ONE SHOULD SHUT UP!
But most important, I'm a firm believer in that, when one makes a mistake, one should accept it, instead of insulting other people, and trying to twist things to save face.

Like my father used to say: "If everybody realized there's a reason why humans have two ears and only one mouth, the world would be a better place".

[wytbishop]

On the contrary, I DO get you quite well.
For example, after I rebutted all your prior "points", now, you're the "victim", and this is some kind of vendetta.
This seems like some kind of vendetta because you rebutted my opinions ina very argumentative and unfriendly way.

Never mind that I don't know you, not even from another forum. Never mind that we have never argued before. I just have some kind of a beef with you.
You seem to have a beef with me because you are being argumentative and unfriendly.


So now, even when I limited myself (more or less) to argue the aforementioned "points", while it was YOU who spend his time calling me all sort of names, I'M the one making it "into a fight".
You are right, I should not have called you a douche. I am sorry for having done so.


Like I said, I've seen this before, you wouldn't believe how many times, in how many different forums.

So let me be REALLY clear: I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH YOU. I'm just a firm believer in that, when one doesn't have anything to say, ONE SHOULD SHUT UP!
If I have things to say that you don't agree with do I have to shut up then too?
But most important, I'm a firm believer in that, when one makes a mistake, one should accept it, instead of insulting other people, and trying to twist things to save face.
I have not made a mistake. Every opinion I expressed was thoughtful and valid. I understand that you don't agree, but that does not make them mistakes. Please point out how I have "twisted" things to try to save face. I meant exactly what I said every time. I stand by all of it. I believe you have misinterpreted most of it.

I didn't want it to be like this. I'm a friendly guy. I have perfectly legitimate opinions. When I called you names it was because your first words to me in this discussion were, "Sorry, you're wrong". You may disagree, but that doesn't make me wrong. I could go through this thread and list several examples, like that one, of you acting like a jerk. I have been hostile to you on exactly one occasion and in my opinion you deserved it. It was milder than most would have offered if I had not done so first.

[93vtecklr]

Inodoro, I KINDLY suggest you use the search feature, author wytbishop. Why, you may ask? If you would take a good hour to read even a fraction of his posts you would most definately retract the "pick up a book" recommendation. I believe you didn't agree with his statements, and this is a simple case of Internet + Anonymity + Lack of Consequences = Forum Fighting. That is not what mx-3.com is for. It's for the sharing of information and group pride in our cars. I could understand getting upset if there was mom jokes flying around. Which is not the case, let's just settle this with some forum jeopardy.

[Inodoro Pereyra]

On the contrary, I DO get you quite well.
For example, after I rebutted all your prior "points", now, you're the "victim", and this is some kind of vendetta.
This seems like some kind of vendetta because you rebutted my opinions ina very argumentative and unfriendly way.

Your opinions were rebutted in a simple way, straight and to the point, as all unfounded technical opinions should be rebutted.

Never mind that I don't know you, not even from another forum. Never mind that we have never argued before. I just have some kind of a beef with you.
You seem to have a beef with me because you are being argumentative and unfriendly.

See above.

So now, even when I limited myself (more or less) to argue the aforementioned "points", while it was YOU who spend his time calling me all sort of names, I'M the one making it "into a fight".
You are right, I should not have called you a douche. I am sorry for having done so.

Hmmm, how about "a-hole" and "D---"?
You're not sorry for those?

Like I said, I've seen this before, you wouldn't believe how many times, in how many different forums.

So let me be REALLY clear: I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH YOU. I'm just a firm believer in that, when one doesn't have anything to say, ONE SHOULD SHUT UP!
If I have things to say that you don't agree with do I have to shut up then too?

No. You should shut up when you don't have anything valid to say. This is a technical matter. Physics and chemistry are exact sciences. There's no room on either of them for "opinions". Things are a given way, and no "outside the box" thinking can change them.
There's a responsibility implied every time anybody types something on a public forum. You don't know who may read your statements, so you should be careful what you say. Especially when you are an old, well respected member, and you know damn well people are gonna take your word as gospel.

But most important, I'm a firm believer in that, when one makes a mistake, one should accept it, instead of insulting other people, and trying to twist things to save face.
I have not made a mistake. Every opinion I expressed was thoughtful and valid. I understand that you don't agree, but that does not make them mistakes. Please point out how I have "twisted" things to try to save face. I meant exactly what I said every time. I stand by all of it. I believe you have misinterpreted most of it.

Really? What part have I misinterpreted?
Your poorly made excuses? (I said it "jokingly")...
Or your personal attacks?

I didn't want it to be like this. I'm a friendly guy. I have perfectly legitimate opinions. When I called you names it was because your first words to me in this discussion were, "Sorry, you're wrong". You may disagree, but that doesn't make me wrong. I could go through this thread and list several examples, like that one, of you acting like a jerk. I have been hostile to you on exactly one occasion and in my opinion you deserved it. It was milder than most would have offered if I had not done so first.

Are you? Do you always insult people you want to be friends with?
I said you're wrong because you are. Actually, you got me so riled up about that, that today I asked my manager if the phrase "sorry, you're wrong" was in any way offensive. Turns out it's not. You seem a bit too sensitive.
There's no such thing as "legitimate opinions" in exact sciences. There's only right and wrong. All your "legitimate opinions" can be rebutted by any high school student with half a brain. I mean, those you haven't said "jokingly"...
So,...you have been hostile to me just once...
I guess that's yet another of your problems: you can't count.
But most importantly, I have never been hostile to you. I have limited myself to discuss your "opinions" while you insistently insulted me, and tried to turn this thread into a personal issue.

Grow up.