Production of Honda FCX Clarity Hydrogen Car Begins

I think it looks really good. Would LOVE an electric version of it. Just with li-ion batteries, or some of those ferrous batteries. No need for hydrogen.

I guess one can't deny the benefit of having celebrities drive these in terms of PR, but would they be the best for an initial set of owners? Some of those people probably hardly ever drive themselves anywhere. Who knows, I guess. Why not give them to some commuters or a taxi driver or something? I am excited to see them, and I think they do look good.

It is an electric car. A fuel cell is just used in place of some of the batteries. They can easily release this without the fuel cell, but you wouldn't have the same quick recharge and range.

One thing I've not yet seen in these stories is any indication of just how much an equivalent "gallon" of hydrogen costs at the "pump".

But according to the Hydrogen Association's web site, "The estimated costs for producing and delivering hydrogen to the
fueling station using today’s technologies vary from $2.10/gallon of gasoline equivalent (gge) to $9.10/gge."

Which means that in addition to higher vehicle costs you could be paying up to twice as much at the pump.

I remember a few years back reading about gasoline fuel cells, this would be a way to significantly increase mpg and use existing infrastructure.

Where does all the hydrogen come from? Either natural gas or from electricity.

I could buy a Honda already that runs on natural gas, so why waste the energy to convert to hydrogen?

Is a natural gas fuel cell possible?

No one wants to acknowledge what is obvious: that gasoline too is an energy carrier. And, that the largest consumer of hydrogen in the world is the refinery "Cracking" of petroleum to produce gasoline. Millions of tons per year of H2 made from natural gas is already used for transportation.

The fuel cell car simply skips these steps.

I don't think I would diss Honda for producing a fuel-cell vehicle. If we ever actually figure out where to find a good clean source of hydrogen it wouldn't hurt to have some vehicle ideas ahead of time. Concept cars like this one are important for testing out technology, and Honda seems to be commercially ahead of the Chevy Equinox (http://gas2.org/2008/06/12/gm-backs-hydrogen-refueling-station-near-la/) and at least 7 years ahead of VW's Tiguan (http://gas2.org/2008/06/16/vw-debuts-tiguan-hymotion-fuel-cell-vehicle-and-2009-clean-diesel-jetta/).

Someone please explain exactly what the problem is here? What's the environmental problem with the FCX? The tailpipe produces water, but the engine produces natural gases which are expelled where?

I was thinking the exact same thing as David- celebrities hardly ever drive themselves anywhere.
I definitley think some people besides celebrities should be the first to drive them.

In any case, I don't see why Honda just won't release an electric vehicle and stop messing with hydrogen which is years off. Plug-in hybrids are NOW, hydrogen can take years because of the fueling stations and other issues.

Hydrogen may be more expensive on a BTU basis than gasoline, but fuel cells are more than twice as efficent, so it does balance out. Even with the conversion losses, I believe that fuel cells are still significantly more efficent than burning natural gas.

Anyway, I don't think that hydrogen is the future for the principle fuel source for light vehicles, but it could be competitive as a supimental fuel for PHEVS and also be competitive for locomotives, ships, construction/farming equipment, etc.

It would be sad, and terrible publicity, if these hydrogen cars blew up because of... whatever problems there are with hydrogen, and the "select few" celebrities were the ones that suffered because of it... lol....

Although I suppose a hydrogen car blowing up because of a flawed design would be about as likely as a gas car blowing up... lol...

3600 lb is a way heavy for a so called green car. There is no way that a car can be energy frugal if it is 1000 lb too heavy.

A fuel cell sounds expensive, and so does the gas. Where would I fill up?

The Battery electric car sounds so much more simple. Why not make those that are freeway capible?

Honda seems to be driving a new idea but it comes with its own set of issues : how many "pumps" can be made available for refueling the tanks? what would it cost ? We realize that we are dependent on fuel for our day to day needs so why not work on something which is more productive and readily available and importantly is clean and green.

I think this is still an open question.

o A hydrogen vehicle can be fueled in a couple of minutes; it takes hours to recharge batteries.

o Batteries have a limited lifespan and are costly to replace. They also require recycling, usually meaning down cycling. I haven't seen a "cradle to cradle" battery design yet.

o The ultimate energy source issue is the same for all electrics, whether fuel cell or battery.

o In a collision, hydrogen is non-toxic; a mangled battery is a hazmat problem.

o Supercapacitors could work, but none are currently being used in electric cars. Today, supercapacitors lack energy storage. This may change, for instance with nanotube supercapacitors. But nanotubes have their own toxicity issues, and nanotubes would not be encased as they are in composite materials. Crush a nanotube supercap, and nanotube dust would come out.

I think we should hold off on counting out hydrogen for now. The best solution to the electric car is not yet obvious. When a few million have been built, we'll know.

I'm not ready to totally write off hydrogen just yet. Battery electric cars to afford a more direct use of electricity without much loss. But what about long term? What's the longterm impact of millions of car batteries in production and being unusable after five or ten years? How long can a hydrogen system last by comparison? And what about long road trips? Or freight? Batteries don't solve those problems very well and the only solution people are talking about for those problems involves fossil fuels.

Hydrogen has the potential, if formed and compressed with renewable energy, to provide a clean, quick refueling, range extending fuel for a lot of applications (fuel cells or internal combustion engines). I would love a Chevy-Volt-type hybrid with a hydrogen fuel cell as the recharging range extender.

I hope Honda and others keep working on Hydrogen until the dream of the five-minute electric recharge is a reality.

Alonzo, I def. agree that hydrogen research is good. It'll help advance other fields too, and might be useful someday. I just don't think it's so productive to have commercialization right now. Would be much better to put all that effort and money in plug-in hybrids or EVs right now.

@bulgarian solicitor:

It's not so much a problem as a fairly roundabout solution:

You need electricity to produce the hydrogen (which then has various storage and transportation issues) so why not just use that electricity to power a car directly?

There are other tradeoffs as brownjeans has mentioned, with the refuelling/charging time perhaps being the biggest. If you're feeling a bit more cynical, I read somewhere that an additional 'advantage' of hydrogen is that it needs a distribution infrastructure which means someone can make money from it.

Honda is renting the car, they aren't selling it, so I'll wait until they do to be impressed. When Honda produced and put an EV on the market, they rented those to consumers too (leasing is a long term rent contract). Seen any of those running around lately? Plus the area they are being distributed in is very narrow. An EV was possible with existing infrastructure and they didn't make them. These they might actually make because we'd need the Chevron's and Exxon's of the world to make hydrogen refueling stations. That would maintain their wealth and give the taxing authorities a way to get your tax dollars to maintain the highways. Or maybe, I am just too hard to please.

Willbyrne, yes, there is definitely money to be made on designing and building a national hydrogen infrastructure, but the cost of hydrogen can and will be kept in check by the fact that there can be no cartel or monopoly that controls the world hydrogen market. In fact, Honda has put forth the concept of the Home Energy Station that can create compressed hydrogen from water and natural gas. By extension, I see no reason why the Home Energy Station cannot be hooked up to a solar photovoltaic or wind power array. The ability for people to create their own fuel thereby limits the opportunity for price gouging and collusion by energy companies.

I think hydrogen, created from renewable energy, is probably the best option we have today. Once commercialized, there will be great advances in the storage and transport of hydrogen. I don't see battery technology getting much cheaper, especially if/when demand skyrockets on a commercial scale. And as mentioned before, there is that pesky issue of downcycling/disposal/recycling of spent batteries that needs to be considered on a massive level. And of course there is the issue of refueling.

Why are they spending money on technology that still requires a "gas station"? I know it's a far stretch, but don't you think these guys have made enough money off our energy needs? Automobile engineers need to focus on "plug in" electric cars. Cars that can be recharged, overnight, at home.

Next step, get the electricity companies to focus their energies on nuclear, wind and solar electricity. I'd put in solar panels at my house if they weren't so blasted expensive.

The potential advantage of hydrogen over batteries is that batteries require the use of sometimes toxic metals, and even non-toxic ones have to be mined, recycled, etc. Hydrogen, however, just comes from water and potentially can be produced on location. While it is a long ways off, it is an exciting concept, because hydrogen is potentially a way to store energy without having as much waste as metal batteries.

Another advantage to hydrogen is the ability to quick fill. Batteries take overnight to charge and are not practical for road trips. Who says there will have to be one power source for vehicles in the future, anyway? It is better to have a large selection of different power sources and choose which is best for the individual. Hydrogen is another option in addition to BEV's, and the more options the better.

I was happy to read that so many people are supportive of an electron based economy, just like me. I was upset that some people have the nerve to comment on how bad batteries are (recharging time for example), clearly not having done their research. Get with it guys!

Hydrogen is out. Electrons are in:

hydrogen initiatives are actually being dismissed by the European Fuel Cell Forum. Look up Ulf Bossel, if you want some background on that. He has some great ideas about how an electron economy can work. He also scientifically proves that the power waste associated with hydrogen is enourmous.

30 countries, are looking at trying Israels electric car project (www.projectbetterplace.com). Denmark being the first. Don't be fooled, Danish people do not beat around the bush - they may appear to be ever so laid back, but they're smart. That's why they've embraced electricity and not hydrogen.

A bit more about that project here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/27/denmark_agassi_ev/

I would like to give some props to treehugger.com for giving an honest evaluation of the new fuel cell car. It is definitely just a pr stunt. Maybe bring a little more "green" awareness, but really, it just hurts the cause because it makes enviros look like idiots. As someone who is not an environmentalist in the least (no I dont believe in global warming) Im glad you guys are holding the rest of the tree huggers to a higher standard.

Also, to alonzo perez - in a collision hydrogen is extremely explosive. Besides the inefficiency of hydrogen as an energy medium, the safety factor is the biggest reason that it should not become widespread. If you dont believe me, just google "hindenburg". I think you might find an article or two

when is this car coming in the market in north america as soon as it comes i want to buy it rite away

HL, hydrogen is not explosive, it burns. The Hindenburg burned, and the Challenger tank burned. If the energy carried by the Hindenburg or the Challenger space shuttle had been released in an explosion, there would have been no survivors in the Hindenburg, and the pressurized Challenger cabin would have ruptured (the cabin made it all the way down to impact, with all astronauts still in one piece and perhaps even alive though unconscious.)

A gas, hydrogen dissipates quickly and is non-toxic.

Lithium Ion batteries DO explode, for no particular reason, as many notebook owners have discovered. This is a major reason for Tesla's delay. Exploded batteries produce toxic gases, liquids, and metal particles.

I agree that hydrogen is currently costly to produce in energy terms, but I'm not convinced this can't be resolved through time. The total absence of a battery disposal problem also impacts the final efficiency of the system. How much energy is required to build and then recycle batteries? Why is nobody giving a full lifecycle description for batteries?

Jesper: What research do I need to do? Tesla won't be specific on recharge times, nor will anybody else really. Sure, faster technology is being developed, but it's not yet commercial. Why do you find a need to choose "sides" at a time when there isn't a single mainstream electric car, either fuel-cell or battery powered? If batteries are so good, where are all the battery-powered EVs?

Let people do their work. The best solution will become apparent where it counts, on the road, soon enough.

Alonso,

To me, being burned to death, or crushed by an explosion... both BAD.

Hydrogen is a dangerous fuel source. It can be used and handled safely, but the reality is that in a car accident, whatever safety controls are there could easily be disabled.

If you have a gasoline leak in a car after a wreck, the gasoline can ignite, and the VAPOR being evolved by the gasoline will burn, this is dangerous. If the gasoline is heated and vaporizes in a confined space (gas tank) it can explode... worse.

If you have a hydrogen leak, the hydrogen is already all vapor, so it will all ignite when it reaches an ignition source.. thats worse. Also the hydrogen (because it is in gas form and less dense) will be stored already under a lot of pressure. It will be somehing like a scuba tank or a helium tank. If they rupture, they become a missile - also dangerous.

These are all very practical considerations as to why hydrogen is more dangerous than gasoline, here is a study i found that shows chemically why the hydrogen is more dangerous than gasoline.

http://aiche.confex.com/aiche/s06/preliminaryprogram/abstract_35831.htm

All the current fuel cell cars (Ford Hydrive, Chevy Equinox, Honda Clarity) all have lithijum batteries too...so you cant criticize battery without criticizing FCV.

Also, fuel cell stack (current technology) requires precious rare metal like platinum. Not quite cost effective or sustainable (however you can recycle FC stack, but then so can lithium ion batteries). Unlike LeadAcid, NiCad, NiMH, Lithium chemistries are much much less toxic.

Also, fuel cell stack degrades around 70k-100k miles, so you'll have to replace that too...similar if not worst to current lithium battery lifetime, and cost (at this time, FC stack costs 10x more).

The only advantage for hydrogen that I can see is fuel up time vs chargeup time...Although100 miles capacity charge up has been demonstrated in 10min (Altairnano).

I think there are niche applications for FCV, just not in personal mobility when there are much better options ahead.

More like the Rarity. More PR from the auto industry to create the illusion the automobile has a future. Hybrid, Electric and Hydrogen cars are the light and low-tar cigarettes of the auto industry.

So, I think the best solution in terms of efficiency would be a plug in fuel cell hybrid. Whatever the hydrogen or electricity source, this will give you the maximum efficiency (from batteries) and potentially unlimited range (since the fuel cell allows rapid refueling).
This helps with the infrastructure problem too, because people will buy electric cars when they are available, and this will ease the process of getting to a critical mass of fuel cells out there, so that businesses invest in hydrogen infrastructure.
Also, since both batteries and fuel cells are electric modes of powering the car, engineering-wise it would seem that this kind of car would actually be easier to design and build than a gas/electric hybrid that requires separate systems for both power sources.
And if the hydrogen storage problem proves too difficult, remember that we could always have cars crack hydrogen from hydrocarbons at the point of use. We can use clean energy to make hydrocarbons (including methane/natural gas) about as easily as we can make hydrogen, and we could make it from water and atmospheric CO2 so that the overall process is carbon-neutral.
By the way, what fraction of parts in a car have a lifespan of more than 100k miles? That is 8 years for most people. How many cars really stay around for much longer than that? Sure there are some out there with hundred's of thousands of miles, but overall they are the minority. By eight years you've probably had to do plenty of maintenance on a gas powered car too.

Why is everyone talking of the "greedy" oil companies, and not talking of soon to be greedy electric companies...given the market shifts towards electric cars? It will be the same song and dance with a new partner.

We American's have had it too good, for too long. It is honestly about time gas prices jumped in order to allow for capitalism to work. The prices rise, the people and the government panic, and now the government and unions must loosen their stranglehold on the auto industry.

Face it, the government makes too much on oil to let it go. Those "greedy" oil companies make a 9% margin while they pay for the R&D, manufacturing, and maintaining, while the goverment takes a 15% collection on the sale of gasoline for doing nothing.

Honda is actually doing a lot more than people realize. Included in their home refueling station for the hydrogen vehicle, is an energy producer. This would mean that you get paid for what energy you "waste" from that unit and sell to the grid. They are also selling a home heating and cooling unit that does the same (not to mention their solar endeavor and wind research). The energy discarded by the process is harnessed, and sold back to the grid.

Take a look at any process, whether mechanical, electrical, or physiological, and you will see that energy is wasted everywhere. What a novel concept to capture that unused energy, and put it to good use.

Bottom line...let capitalism work. Loosen restrictions and government control, and you will see a massive leap in technology. Example...Look at Nikola Tesla's work. Why did the government confescate the information at the time of his death, and why haven't we seen it?

Could it be the cash cow?

You are wrong about hydrogen being a dangerous fuel. The fact is that Hydrogen is the lightest gas found in nature. What this means is that if theres any kind of leak, it will immediately escape up into the air. It won't gather in one place for their to be an explosion. The hindenburg had all the hydrogen in a balloon trapped in there and there was more in there. Even if there was a rupture in the hydrogen tank the immediate result would be flames shooting out when it ignites with oxygen and you may hear a loud pop.

Thats it. Gasoline is actually more dangerous than Hydrogen in the igniting department. It is several times more dangerous.

Before everyone jumps on the hydrogen bandwagon (having jumped off the corn ethanol bandwagon), has anybody considered its' possible effect on climate ? Won't enormous amounts of water vapor spewed into the air cause a li'l rainstorm or two. I'm scientifically illiterate for the most part but.... There are, however, a lot of tantalizing ipossibilities for power generation. The problem we face is not wether we will find alternative and renewable energy sources. Out of necessity, and when conditions dictate, we will. In the interim, we must not throw tax money down every rabbit hole and suffer those pesky unintended consequences. Government fiats, such as mandating corn ethanol quotas, will only muddy the waters to the advantage of the politically connected. Let the market dictate this.

patel
Is wrong.
Tesla's dealys have been because the elcric motor was so powerful running off batteries that it burned up the tansmission -they decided to not put a trans in the car. Recahge times have been posted on thier site from dsay one. The car is from Silicon Valley and in Prodcution. It's from a Tech company with Techie type owners so the amount of information makes it easy to find out anything and everything about it. Including a whole page with pictures on how they recycle the batteries.

Yes the high presssure in Hydrogen tanks is dangerous. The gas floats up so -not so much.
Lithium is non toxic and is even food grade.

I know we're all sitting here debating electric, fuel Cell and the combination, but has anyone heard about the air car? I've seen very little, but vids can be found on youTube. From what I remember they can only make small cars and can only go 30 or so, but heck that's a start ain't it? AIR in AIR out, sounds great to me.
My question to people is why don't we use wind power to assist charging hybrids? Why not harness the power that drives down fuel economy? I mean put a couple of intakes that go into a wind tunnel full of blades that spin through the wind, the spinning blades assist the charging. That plus solar power, regenerative braking, home filling stations and fuel cell EVs sounds like a great plan to me.

I don't know why people would want a complete electric version of this car, using a hydrogen fuel cell to produce electricity is much more enviromentaly friendly as you are not using electricity created by a polluting power station. also i really do hope eventually more cars are made in this way.

First of all the FCX is the most important invention of this decade. The Prius and all battery cars are going to prove to be the "the waste that we don't know what to do with". The energy to create hydrogen has always been cited as the downfall of hydrogen. However no one seems to consider the amount of energy that goes into creating a gallon of gas. First you have the energy required to pump the crude, ship it, power the hydro-cracker and then transport it to the pump. Then the ethanol additive requires about 750+ gallons of water per gallon of ethanol, which then goes through all the above transportation.
On the other hand, water is easily move to a refining station using existing infrastructure where electrolysis can be applied to split it into hydrogen and oxygen. This process could be entirely grid independent through the use of wind power: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/39534.pdf .

What makes the FCX so revolutionary is that it doesn't require people to change the way they drive or fuel up their cars. Furthermore it doesn't generate the tremendous waste that each Prius does during its manufacturing and life cycle. The roll out of hydrogen pumping stations would just become a federal mandate to all new gasoline stations and ones that undergoing overhaul. These mandates are done fairly regularly regarding storage of gas, so tacking on an additional requirement to have a couple of hydrogen pumps combined with incentives would not be overwhelming burden to gas station owners.

When every other country is streeming with hydrogen highways and the good ol US of A is still paying high oil prices and trying to plug cars into their garage outlets, remember.... It all started with cutting the budget for FCV's and a limetted insight to the future. Very unfortunate in my opinion.