worlds first production hydrogen car - Honda FCX clarity

[Evo_Spec]

not too sure if you guys heard about it, thought i'd inform those who didn't

http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1414544/h ... _cell_car/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

my main concern is how it performs sport wise =P

[onlytrueromeo]

Fuel Cell vehicles are retarded. Waste of money. I've been spouting off on how pissed I am about them for years now, and how our governments are wasting money on research - they will never go anywhere. FC's are not an energy source, they're just a high tech battery that takes a long time to charge.

[Ryan]

I agree. Hydrogen is an very inefficient way to store energy. The process used to get the hydrogen burns more hydrocarbons than the gas powered car would in the first place.

Do you put the battery in your flashlight, or do you use the battery to charge a battery to put in your flashlight? There's no point in converting the energy, because there are ALWAYS losses.

[Savin]

http://videos.streetfire.net/video/Top- ... 205772.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Top Gear's review.... Skip to about 21 minutes into it...

[93vtecklr]

Blech, honda. Need I say more?

[onlytrueromeo]

Honestly, why would people want to drive hydrogen cars? I understand they are "clean" and don't release hydrocarbons themselves, but the energy they take to create the hydrogen does create hydrocarbons. LOL the tidbit about hydrogen being the most abundant element is such a crock - yes, it is the most abundant element in the universe, but that's because stars are made of dense hydrogen, and our air has lots of hydrogen in it. We can't start removing hydrogen from the air as it's extremely unprofitable, not to mention it would be dangerous to our health in the long run, and is technically exhaustible. Electric cars ARE the future, anyone else who says otherwise is kidding themselves, but using fuel cells to achieve this means is stupid - it's just another link in a chain to decrease efficiency, and provide a way for oil companies to maintain some sort of control on the future. Granted, there will need to be a refueling station for future electric vehicles w/ high amperage feeds to recharge some sort of capacitor/battery system (clearly not conventional batteries), but adding more refineries and trucking and pipelines and workers is only necessary if you're doing it for the SOLE BENEFIT OF CORPORATIONS AND THEIR WORKERS! I am all for capitalism, but with sense. Fuel cells are just a waste of money for citizens, and I think Honda knows this but is capitalizing off all the stupid Californian's who like the smell of their own farts. We don't have the technology right now to support electric cars on a worldwide level, and until we do there are better ways to reduce the carbon footprint of humans.

/End Rant

[Inodoro Pereyra]

Honestly, why would people want to drive hydrogen cars? I understand they are "clean" and don't release hydrocarbons themselves,

People want to drive hydrogen cars for the same reason they drive hybrids: because they're "cool".
Go tell the owner of a Prius their car pollutes more to be built than any gas car in its average lifetime. They don't care. Driving a Prius makes them "environmentally friendly", regardless if they really are or not.
Same happens with hydrogen cars. Is not true that hydrogen cars are clean. Hydrogen cars release water vapor, which not only is the most important greenhouse gas (WAY more dangerous than CO2), but it's also the ONLY greenhouse gas that creates a POSITIVE FEEDBACK condition, that is, more water vapor produce a temperature increase, which in turn increases evaporation, which increases temperature...you get it.

It's true electric cars may be the future, but they're the far future. Right now, the technology is just not there yet. Meanwhile, the near future is already here, and nobody even notices. Ethanol and biodiesel have been in use for decades in other countries, like Brazil, with excellent results, but here, instead of implementing those technologies, we sit back and misdirect people into believing any kind of BS against them.

Sorry, now I'm the ranting one...

[Nd4SpdSe]

I'm the opposite, I think electric cars are not the way of the future. You can't recycle batteries and they wear out over time and you can't recycle them. Ironicly I would like to build a small lightweight batery powered vehicle in the near future, just for short trips and for the fun of it.

I'm not a fan of fuel cells, but I do believe I combusting hydrogen, but I do agree with the issue with where to get hydrogen. Getting it from natural gas is laughable and most easilly attainable sources for being better for the environment is laughable.

Hybrids are a joke unless your a taxi driver and doing all city. There was a comparisonbetween an H2 and a Prius a while back and that the H2 was better taking into account manufacturing and end of life recycling.

[onlytrueromeo]

Ethanol, no, biodiesel, yes. Truck's are the worst polluters of motor vehicles, not cars. Clean diesel, with natural gas or propane supplements is actually very efficient. There are people out there working on a gasoline engine that runs w/o a radiator, and uses water injection. While I am for this, I see better potential by working more with the diesel cycle. A diesel cycle engine can benefit more from water injection if the temperature is maintained at a higher temperature. This would mean complete engine redesign, but it is really not all that difficult. Ethanol is/was another gimmic that the government and uninformed people promoted - it is also the cause of more food shortages. Again, while ethanol is "clean", using FOOD to make it is stupid. It's one thing to extract alcohols from decomposing waste, such as grass clippings or dead crops, but another entirely to use fields of food to produce an inefficient burning fuel.

You are right that electric cars as the cheap standard is not right around the corner, but I don't think they're that far off either. We just don't have the energy density storage required, everything else we do have.

To Nd4SpdSE:
I'm not talking batteries, or at least conventional chemical batteries. You are right, they are stupid. I'm talking about a quick charge alternative, something like an ultra high capacitance fluid or an array of plates that can store extreme amounts of energy, and still be able to regulate the current out, while not losing excess charge to the outside environment. It's really not all that crazy of an idea, it's just doing it for cheap in a safe way that we havn't been able to crack yet. The future of electricity is not reversible chemical reactions, I believe it is literally the harnessing of free flowing electrons.

[Inodoro Pereyra]

Ethanol, no, biodiesel, yes. Truck's are the worst polluters of motor vehicles, not cars. Clean diesel, with natural gas or propane supplements is actually very efficient. There are people out there working on a gasoline engine that runs w/o a radiator, and uses water injection. While I am for this, I see better potential by working more with the diesel cycle. A diesel cycle engine can benefit more from water injection if the temperature is maintained at a higher temperature. This would mean complete engine redesign, but it is really not all that difficult. Ethanol is/was another gimmic that the government and uninformed people promoted - it is also the cause of more food shortages. Again, while ethanol is "clean", using FOOD to make it is stupid. It's one thing to extract alcohols from decomposing waste, such as grass clippings or dead crops, but another entirely to use fields of food to produce an inefficient burning fuel.

You are right that electric cars as the cheap standard is not right around the corner, but I don't think they're that far off either. We just don't have the energy density storage required, everything else we do have.

To Nd4SpdSE:
I'm not talking batteries, or at least conventional chemical batteries. You are right, they are stupid. I'm talking about a quick charge alternative, something like an ultra high capacitance fluid or an array of plates that can store extreme amounts of energy, and still be able to regulate the current out, while not losing excess charge to the outside environment. It's really not all that crazy of an idea, it's just doing it for cheap in a safe way that we havn't been able to crack yet. The future of electricity is not reversible chemical reactions, I believe it is literally the harnessing of free flowing electrons.

Actually, you just outlined some of the misinformation I was talking about.

First, while it's true that Diesel trucks do pollute more than cars, you have to remember that the number of gas powered cars worldwide is enormously higher than the number of Diesel trucks, so, as a whole, cars do pollute a lot more than Diesels.

Second, That BS about ethanol needing to be produced from food crops is just plain ridiculous. Ethanol can be produced from almost ANY vegetable matter, not only "corn". as Americans have been lead to believe. Cellulosic ethanol, unlike what most people think, is WW2 technology. The only reason why it's not widely used is because it's expensive.

Third, ethanol being an inefficient fuel is actually just another load of cr@p. In terms of EROEI, ethanol has a variable number (depending on feedstocks and manufacturing methods) going from 1.34 (that is, it produces 34% more energy than it takes to be produced) for corn ethanol, to 8 for sugarcane ethanol, to more than 30 for cellulosic ethanol. Meanwhile, gasoline has an EROEI of 0.77.
In terms of fuel efficiency, ethanol has an energy density of 24 MJ/L, while gasoline's is 34.6 MJ/L. That is, if you use ethanol in an unmodified gasoline engine, you'd get about 69% the fuel efficiency.
But ethanol has other qualities that can be taken advantage of. It burns much colder than gasoline, and has an octane rating of 129/135. Those characteristics allow you to increase the engine's compression ratio to more than 15:1 (either by modifying the engine, or forcing induction with a turbo/supercharger), which in time can make it's fuel efficiency even higher than gasoline. A few years ago, engineers of either Volvo or Saab (I don't remember), compared 2 SUV's on the track, one modified to work with E85, and the E85 one showed to have more power (they didn't say how much) and an 18% better fuel mileage.

Now, about electric cars, No, they're not close, not by a long shot.

First, economically speaking, it'd take decades to have everybody (or at least, a big percentage of the population) to switch to electric cars. Remember that electric cars are not compatible at all with the current technology.
Second, the grid, at least in the U.S., is overloaded as it is, and could NOT absorb the increase of consumption, even if you convinced everybody (good luck with that) to recharge their cars at night.

Third, technologically, there's still no storage technology that'd come even close to what's needed. The most powerful capacitors in the world (the gold power/gel "supercapacitors") would take whole days to get the charge a battery gets in 24 hs.
Also, to get a cable capable of delivering such charge in a few minutes would call for the use of flexible superconductors, capable of superconducting at ambient temperature, that just don't exist.

Electric cars are a nice toy, and they will be for decades to come. Meanwhile, switching a gas engine to ethanol only takes some fairly minor (comparatively) modifications to a technology already in existence, and changing a Diesel engine to work on biodiesel only takes a cleanup, and, in some extreme cases, a gasket replacement.

[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.

[Flyer]

Forget that, I want a car powered by a miniture version of this...maybe even a glorified Xbox 360

[Inodoro Pereyra]

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.

[onlytrueromeo]

E85, or pure ethanol will not work in conventional cars in a more efficient manor. Ethanol burns colder, and is better for power applications - for example the dodge viper gained significant HP using ethanol, but because the energy density itself is lower, it will take more fuel per mile. If ethanol was produced cheaply, and sold for less than gasoline to make up for this difference, it might be more worthwhile to the consumer. There is just no way it can be made for "efficient" for MPG's sake when it has a lower energy density, unless you are able to extract the energy from it w/o increasing the temperature (and by increasing CR you are increasing the temp) .

I agree with you that cellulostic ethanol is an effective way of producing ethanol, I should have made this clearer in my first post about grass clippings and such. There is actually research being done now on algae being used to create gasoline and alcohols while reducing CO2 levels. I just don't agree with increasing farming for corn and sugar cane crops to produce a fuel that will only be a temporary solution - when mass producing crops, toxic chemicals are poured over them to keep them growing and fight bugs. Fertilizer increases greenhouse gasses. I don't see this form of "alternative energy" as being the significant clean technology that we need. Also, there ARE farmers who found it more profitable to stop growing FOOD and grow fuel crops. There is a world shortage of food, and while I don't believe it is our responsibility to take care of every single hungry person in the world, I don't think we should make the problem any worse by decreasing food supply.

Ethanol, just like hybrids, and just like Hydrogen cars, are a temporary fix - how long they last, I cannot say. Yes, it will take awhile to develop and switch to the next big idea (which I think is electric), but that's the case w/ any technology that is so widely used. I don't think Internal combustion engines will every leave society completely, and ethanol may be the future for all IC engines, but if it is the technology that propels us into tomorrow, than we are a slow, sad people. In reality, if we don't find a way to produce more electricity, we will never move away from the need for coal or burnable fuels. This is really the pressing matter, and is also why I believe the future is electric. You are right that the infrastructure would need to be significantly bumped up to accommodate the draw needed, but there are ways to think outside the box. If tech. is so great that energy can be stored in compact spaces, cars may have the capability to travel for 1000, maybe more miles on a single charge. Or, just like how gas stations work today, energy can be trucked in. Yeah yeah, it sounds crazy, but it's hard to imagine things like this.

I agree our technology isn't there yet, but every day we get closer. Another out of the box idea is biological fuel cells, where bacteria actually produce electricity. I never said we had the capability to do this yet, but I don't think anything on the current market is what we should be focusing on.


Back to hydrogen - what's the point of spending energy to store energy? Also, I do agree with the increased water vapor, that it's not entirely clean, but don't think it's as big of a problem as you make it out to be. All electric is the only thing that makes sense to me, but not w/ a mass storage of heavy batteries that take a long time to charge. I think spending money on hydrogen research is a waste, and would rather see that money go towards developing something for 10-25 years down the road.

[Ryan]

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.

Electric cars, if they will ever figure out the right kind of storage, will rule. We can generate huge ammounts of electricity with wind turbines, hydro, tides, sun, anything. Technically speaking, taking the energy straight from the sun is most efficient, because ALL energy on the earth originiated from the sun, everything else has been converted... Canada sells a rediculous ammount of hydro electricty to the States, because we're so loaded. Europe is all over wind and solar energy, and in Germany now, I think 60% of their electric needs are satisfied by civilian generators, sun and wind power.

Electricity is VERY easy to gather. Hydrogen, not so much. At all.