Honda FCX Clarity

[Ralphie]

Its not always about saving the most money, its also good to know you have a really nice car and its good for the enviroment too. At least thats how i think. Sure you might save money with an accord/civic but your still polluting the enviroment somewhat.

Oh i agree, the environment is important but in times like this spending almost a G a month for ANY car is fucking stupid. IDC if it helps restore the fucking Ozone layer.

But to each his own.

New Honda's are not THAT bad for the environment.

90-93 Accords may not be great but there a ton better then some of the other vehicles running around out there.

[owequitit]

A lot of misinformation in this thread.

1) The FCX does in fact cost Honda somewhere on the order of half a million dollars. They are losing money by leasing them to the public.

2) The primary purpose of the Clarity is to gather real world engineering data. The first FCX was proven in a lab and then used on a very limited basis by the City of Los Angeles for a few years. Honda then took this data to use in refining the fuel cell for the FCX Clarity. They made significant improvements to the design to make it more efficient, smaller, lighter and cheaper. However, in order to prove the technology in the real world, for what they believe is a production feasible fuel cell, they needed more real world data. They will then take this data and use it to correct any issues they find with the fuel cell. However, Honda has already said that the version of the cell in the Clarity is pretty much already production ready.

The reasons it is only available in LA is because LA is the only area that has a little bit of a hydrogen refueling infrastructure and they have to keep the car within range of a refueling station.

They probably also want them close to home so that they can monitor them and easily keep track of them. This aids the research part.

3)Honda has just announced that they have successfully developed a home hydrogen refueling station that will use solar power and is probably about the size of a large freezer. This makes fueling the car possible at any location so equipped, and rumors are out that Honda may expand the test area for the Clarity.

4) Whoever said hydrogen wasn't feasible needs to do some research. There are drawbacks, but they aren't insurmountable, nor is any other technology (*cough* plug in vehicles *cough*) without its severe limitations either.

The advantage to hydrogen is that it is limitless, and would be cheap and environmentally friendly. Since it is limitless, it would not be subject to the supply and demand economics as much as petroleum, and thus the price would be much less volatile and more predictable. This would make it easier to sustain economic growth or health because cost would be predictable, and we wouldn't be subject to huge cost swings.

Estimates right now put the cost of mass produced hydrogen at about $1.50 a gallon equivalent, indefinitely.

The downside to hydrogen is that it is extremely reactive, and thus is not found pure in nature. Due to the specific characteristics of hydrogen bonding, it requires a lot of energy to extract the hydrogen, which is why we need a major power infrastructure update to make it work. It makes no sense to burn billions of pounds of carbon based fossil fuels so that we can produce clean hydrogen to put in our cars, as we may as well just burn gas.

However, with a nuclear powered infrastructure, we could easily produce the power required to produce years worth of hydrogen for only a few pounds of uranium waste. Even better, who knows what knowledge may be gained from hydrogen research that might make fusion feasible.

5) Honda is ready to ramp up production of their fuel cell, and has already said that the cost would come down to a reasonable and profitable level with mass production, but until there is some sort of infrastructure to support it, it is pointless. After Obama nixed hydrogen funding, Honda set about developing their own infrastructure, which will be the home fueling station that will be available in the near future, and will use water to produce hydrogen for the car, which means it is long term and sustainable.

6) Performance of the FCX Clarity is about on par with the I4 Accord and it returns the equivalent of 2.2 times the fuel economy, on fuel that costs nearly half as much. It is also mechanically very simple.

Hydrogen is the future. All we are doing is wasting money by developing all of these "interim" technologies that appease the greenie numbnuts that really don't have a clue how off base they are with reality.

[mtnbikaah]

owequitit, is that home hydrogen refueling thing the same as the Honda Home Energy Station? are they related?

I have to agree about Hydrogen being the fuel of the future.

It was mentioned above by Ralphie about the running costs, etc. What happens when the oil runs out? What good is a gasoline running vehicle then?

The research has to be done before we run out of oil on how to run vehicles.

I applaud plug-in vehicles to a point. They are commuter vehicles. They are designed for commuting your 20 miles to work and back home everyday. That's it. If you own a plug-in vehicle I see the need to also have a gasoline vehicle for long distance driving. But for most of time people use a car for commuting. (i'm talking general population here)

As mentioned, the FCX Clarity takes care of the long distance driving providing that there is the infrastructure to refuel. If there is no large scale infrastructure for refueling a vehicle it will not succeed. If we only get the home refueling station then it is no better than a plug-in vehicle. (though it depends on where your electricity comes from whether or not it is environmentally friendly or not but let's not get into that right now.)

my .02$

[deevergote]

Hydrogen won't become a complete replacement for gasoline. Neither will electricity.

Honestly, we are more than likely moving toward a multi-fuel society. Just like gasoline and diesel have co-existed, we're going to start to see other forms of fuel emerging as well. The fact that we're so dependant on petroleum as a sole source of fuel is crippling, mainly because it's a finite resource, but also because we rely ONLY on petroleum.

I don't think petroleum based fuels are going to be gone anytime soon (probably not in our lifetimes), but I expect to see fueling stations with hydrogen, electricity, petroleum fuels, and whatever else comes along.

[owequitit]

owequitit, is that home hydrogen refueling thing the same as the Honda Home Energy Station? are they related?

I have to agree about Hydrogen being the fuel of the future.

It was mentioned above by Ralphie about the running costs, etc. What happens when the oil runs out? What good is a gasoline running vehicle then?

The research has to be done before we run out of oil on how to run vehicles.

I applaud plug-in vehicles to a point. They are commuter vehicles. They are designed for commuting your 20 miles to work and back home everyday. That's it. If you own a plug-in vehicle I see the need to also have a gasoline vehicle for long distance driving. But for most of time people use a car for commuting. (i'm talking general population here)

As mentioned, the FCX Clarity takes care of the long distance driving providing that there is the infrastructure to refuel. If there is no large scale infrastructure for refueling a vehicle it will not succeed. If we only get the home refueling station then it is no better than a plug-in vehicle. (though it depends on where your electricity comes from whether or not it is environmentally friendly or not but let's not get into that right now.)

my .02$

No, the home fueling station is different. And it is solar powered, so there is no draw on the power grid.

The problem with plug-ins is two fold.

1) People have this perception that they are being green because they aren't putting gas in their tank and then burning it. The problem is that they aren't intelligent enough to understand that 80% of our power is generated by burning coal, natural gas, or petroleum. The unfortunate reality is that some of those fuels (especially coal) are MUCH dirtier than gasoline, and they produce a lot more CO2. So you really aren't saving the environment, you simply are brainwashed into thinking you are. It is a false sense of accomplishment, which is why I make fun of them. They are dumb and need to be ridiculed. Perhaps if society makes fun of them enough, they will A) not be as detrimental an influence in brainwashing young children and B) will re-engage their brains with reality so that we can get some actual work done instead of spending all of our money living in la la land.

On the one hand, they want to push everything off onto a fossil fuel burning power grid, and on the other hand, they REFUSE to embrace clean, sustainable, and safe technologies like nuclear. They don't want dams, and they don't want windmills in their back yard (stuffing them in mine seems to be OK with them though). They seem to want some mystical, fairy tell magic to come along and save the day. Good luck with that. In the meantime, they are simply relocating the problem out of sight, rather than actually solving anything.

Second, they don't consider the environmental consequences of the production of their vehicles because they can't see it. We have essentially replaced petroleum exploitation with precious metal exploitation, and we create all sorts of nasty environmental catastrophe in the extracting, refining, and production of those batteries. However, the short sighted hippies never want to consider that because they can't see it, so it must not exist right?

This is also the problem I have with hybrids, and to an extent fuel cell vehicles. The Prius over its lifetime creates a whole lot more pollution than its buyers think it does. It is on the order of being equivalent to a large SUV, so what is the point? But alas, they don't see that other pollution, so clearly they are heralding a new era of environmental prosperity right? Wrong!

At least with the hybrids and the Clarity, the battery packs are relatively small, so the impact is less. With the Clarity, they are smaller still because the car is not required to store nearly as much electricity because the fuel cell is capable of generating electricity on the spot. So the batteries really only have to serve the function of providing a burst of electricity while the fuel cell's output is increased which only takes a few seconds. We aren't storing electricity that we need, we are producing it on the spot, which saves weight and battery material. Don't even get me started on the hazards of Li Ion batteries.

2) The major part that hippies fail to consider (again because they don't take the time to understand a complex problem, as they seek only superficial gratification) is that powerplants don't just ramp output up and down. That means that when there is high demand on the system, they have to gradually ramp production up over a couple of hours, and then it take a couple of hours to ramp it back down. Since Americans will be unhappy dealing with rolling brownouts, the solution is simple. Ramp production up to a level higher than what you need, before you need it, and then ramp it back down. The PROBLEM with this is that we are going to have WASTE many megatons of fossil fuel every year to accomplish this which makes the CO2 equation look even worse.

Isn't it amazing that in the quest to reduce CO2 production we actually create more? What is the logic in that?

[owequitit]

Hydrogen won't become a complete replacement for gasoline. Neither will electricity.

Honestly, we are more than likely moving toward a multi-fuel society. Just like gasoline and diesel have co-existed, we're going to start to see other forms of fuel emerging as well. The fact that we're so dependant on petroleum as a sole source of fuel is crippling, mainly because it's a finite resource, but also because we rely ONLY on petroleum.

I don't think petroleum based fuels are going to be gone anytime soon (probably not in our lifetimes), but I expect to see fueling stations with hydrogen, electricity, petroleum fuels, and whatever else comes along.

Why?

Where is the logic in being based on multiple fuels?

1) To some extent you are correct. It is unfathomable at this point how something like an airplane is going to run off hydrogen. They are going to need petroleum or some alternative fuel for the forseeable future. However, there is nothing else on this planet that can't be run successfully, safely and cheaply on hydrogen. Not one. Boats can use nuclear or alternative fuels, but realistically, they could also produce their own electricity as the fuel cells are wholly scalable to the job.

2) Hydrogen is the ONLY solution that has ZERO CO2 output. If we are serious about solving global warming, then we are serious about using hydrogen. If we aren't serious about using hydrogen then we are just huffing hot air and lining the pockets of special interest groups who are literally sucking hundreds of billions of dollars from the taxpayers every single year. In fact, these special interest groups make the oil companies and banks look like impotent little guys. It is also the only one that is indefinitely and unquestionably renewable, because if we run out of hydrogen we are all dead anyway.

The ONLY reason we have been so dependent on carbon based fuels is because it is the only solution with the energy to density ratio that makes sense. It is easily extracted, produced, refined, transported and consumed, and it provides a lot of energy for the volume used.

There is a misconception in this country that the oil companies came along, made money out of thin air and forced the country to use petroleum, when the REALITY is that at the turn of the century, there were many alternative fuels being explored (just like now), and oil ended up being the dominant one because it made the most sense. People didn't embrace oil because they were forced to. They embraced oil because it made the most sense. Much as hydrogen makes the most sense going into the future. Right now, the ONLY technology that makes sense as a replacement for petroleum is hydrogen. The other are all either too expensive, or create too much environmental waste.

Plus from a pure economic standpoint, it doesn't make any sense to be a "multi-fuel" society. All that does is drive costs up because ecnomies of scale are reduced, and more technology has to be developed. Other than a few exceptions, hydrogen is the ONLY one that can take care of all of the issues. Just like it did at the turn of the 20th century, one technology will prevail. Since there is only one that meets the supposed needs of the many, as advertised by the greenies, I know where I would put my money.

[mtnbikaah]

i was under the impression that the Honda home energy station was run on natural gas PRODUCING electricity, not running on it, as well as producing hydrogen for your FCX Clarity in the garage....

http://world.honda.com/FuelCell/HomeEnergyStation/

also, we should be pushing for cleaner electricity. electricity, in general, is really dirty, as Owequitit mentioned above. (take a gander at mountain top removal.)

i'll take a honda home energy stations and some solar panels please. in the meanwhile i'll live with the hydro-electricity that is currently running through the house.

does that make me a hippie?

[owequitit]

i was under the impression that the Honda home energy station was run on natural gas PRODUCING electricity, not running on it, as well as producing hydrogen for your FCX Clarity in the garage....

http://world.honda.com/FuelCell/HomeEnergyStation/

also, we should be pushing for cleaner electricity. electricity, in general, is really dirty, as Owequitit mentioned above. (take a gander at mountain top removal.)

i'll take a honda home energy stations and some solar panels please. in the meanwhile i'll live with the hydro-electricity that is currently running through the house.

does that make me a hippie?

Two different things (this is the refined version of what you posted):

http://world.honda.com/FuelCell/SolarHydrogenStation/

This is what is currently in prototype form for the hydrogen refueling.

Honda doesn't specify if it is using NG for supply or water, I thought they did, but apparently not. I was under the impression they were going to run it on water though.

I do know that currently the hydrogen stations in So Cal are producing it by breaking down natural gas. Ideally, we would be using water, but one of water's unique properties is that it doesn't want to give up its H atoms, so it requires a lot of energy to extract them. However, with solar we are essentially using energy that would otherwise be lost anyway, so it makes sense to use water, plus it makes this feasible on houses that don't have NG available. But I don't know if that is what they are doing or not. Since the first one used NG, this one probably does too. But at some point, they need to move it to water.

[deevergote]

Oil makes sense, yes... but it IS a finite resource, and it IS currently the only mainstream choice we have for operating motor vehicles.
The fact that it's the only option has been a hardship. All environmental legislation effects ALL mainstream passenger vehicles. All price increases, taxes, etc... effect all people that use such mainstream vehicles. The fact that there are only a select few countries that can produce enough of it to satisfy the demand means that we are in many cases at their mercy. Imagine if the Middle Eastern oil-producing companies decided to stop selling to us completely? Relying one ONE fuel source, especially with an ever-increasing global demand for it (i won't even comment on the supply...) That's a system that we need to get away from.

Multiple fuels will increase options. Everyone sees fuels such as hydrogen, ethanol, electricity, etc... as being the group from which ONE will end up emerging victorious to dethrone the evil fossil fuel. However, it makes more sense to incorporate ALL fuels into the mainstream. Pull into a Texaco, and have multiple options. If you have an electric, they have a plug. If you have a gasoline engine, they have gas. If you have a hydrogen powered car, they have hydrogen.

It has worked with gasoline and diesel just fine for the majority of the motor vehicle's existance. Why not expand upon it? Just like gas vs. diesel, each fuel has strengths and weaknesses.


People view alternative fuels as an "all or nothing" scenario. That's simply not the case. They're going to have to coexist. No alternative fuel can dethrone fossil fuel in one swift blow. They have to be integrated into the market, and that integration will have to be done slowly, on a very large scale (even more so now that countries like China and India are becoming much more dependant on motor vehicles.)

[wed3k]

150/week and no maintainence? im down, hate working on my own shit.

[owequitit]

Oil makes sense, yes... but it IS a finite resource, and it IS currently the only mainstream choice we have for operating motor vehicles.
The fact that it's the only option has been a hardship. All environmental legislation effects ALL mainstream passenger vehicles. All price increases, taxes, etc... effect all people that use such mainstream vehicles. The fact that there are only a select few countries that can produce enough of it to satisfy the demand means that we are in many cases at their mercy. Imagine if the Middle Eastern oil-producing companies decided to stop selling to us completely? Relying one ONE fuel source, especially with an ever-increasing global demand for it (i won't even comment on the supply...) That's a system that we need to get away from.

Multiple fuels will increase options. Everyone sees fuels such as hydrogen, ethanol, electricity, etc... as being the group from which ONE will end up emerging victorious to dethrone the evil fossil fuel. However, it makes more sense to incorporate ALL fuels into the mainstream. Pull into a Texaco, and have multiple options. If you have an electric, they have a plug. If you have a gasoline engine, they have gas. If you have a hydrogen powered car, they have hydrogen.

It has worked with gasoline and diesel just fine for the majority of the motor vehicle's existance. Why not expand upon it? Just like gas vs. diesel, each fuel has strengths and weaknesses.


People view alternative fuels as an "all or nothing" scenario. That's simply not the case. They're going to have to coexist. No alternative fuel can dethrone fossil fuel in one swift blow. They have to be integrated into the market, and that integration will have to be done slowly, on a very large scale (even more so now that countries like China and India are becoming much more dependant on motor vehicles.)

Couple issues with your logic.

1) Hydrogen/biofuel/electricity are NOT the same as diesel/gasoline. Hydrogen biofuel and electricity are 3 completely different sources of energy. Diesel/gasoline are simply seperate distillates from the same source. It would be more like saying wind generated electricity versus hydroelectric electricity. They are essentially the same thing.

2) Oil is a finite resource. However, for the 100 or so years that it has provided the primary source of transport energy (for the world mind you, NOT just the US) supply was not an issue. Even though we knew it was ultimately finite, there was no better alternative, thus we continued to use it.

However, to apply the same logic to hydrogen is faulty at its core. Hydrogen is NOT finite, and it can't be controlled by any one party. They would literally have to destroy and control the entire worlds water supply, NG supply, and air supply. Then they would have to control space to prevent us from getting it there. That just isn't possible and isn't going to happen (if it did we have issues a lot larger than what we are going to use for fuel anyway). Hydrogen is literally the most abundant element in the universe probably by a factor of 1,000. Supplies are not finite, and thus all of the same supply side economics and demand side economics don't apply the way they do with petroleum.

Besides, petroleum is not nearly as limited as the greenies would have you believe. The Middle East doesn't even hold the majority of the world's supply anymore, and if they cut us off cold turkey (which they wouldn't because as much as they hate to admit it, they want our money), there are other untapped supplies that exceed that supply. The willingness to pump it, and the ability to pump it are two totally different things. We pretty well have AT LEAST 100+ years left that we have already found, and that is including China's growth forecast. Certain groups would have you believe that we have like 10 years remaining.

Alternative fuels are going to become an all or nothing scenario. Guaranteed. The most efficient and easiest to produce/procure/consume source WILL move to the front (just like oil did). There is only 1 alternate that meets all demands. We are wasting time and money by pretending otherwise. And we aren't talking small bucks. We are talking TRILLIONS of dollars we already don't have.

In counter to your scenario, imagine pulling into a Texaco in the middle of nowhere and needing one specific type of fuel and not being able to get it because the cars in that region don't favor it, and thus it isn't carried. Then what?

If everything is standardized, that problem does not occur. Again, there is only one source that meets that demand, unless you want to put up with absurd wait times, searching and hoping, not to mention higher costs.

Your logic might make sense if hydrogen was in fact a finite resource, but it isn't and it is the only one that doesn't have to make CO2 as a side effect (man made global warming is bullshit anyway), and will replenish itself in the process of being used (break down water to form hydrogen and oxygen, when we use it to make electricity, we get water back).

[Leung]

Well i guess i can wait a little longer then if it's lease only and costs 600 bucks a month.

[91ExSedan]

reminds me of this..

[foamypirate]

reminds me of this..

Errr, yeah....those look nothing alike besides having the general side profile of a sedan...

[mj213]

Now I know where owequitit's been for the last week or so.