Honda FCX Clarity

[visualpoet]

Honda FCX Clarity

[accordaffair]

Seems too expensive to use now, BUT all it needs is some momentum to get going. 270 miles on each tank, so each station needs to be at least that close to each other.

[owequitit]

Hopefully, within 10 years or so, the technology will be more prevalent.

[GenDBlade]

they could atleast design a car that isnt ugly as shit

[foamypirate]

they could atleast design a car that isnt ugly as shit

just like you could design a signature that isn't an oxymoron.

[owequitit]

they could atleast design a car that isnt ugly as shit

Styling is subjective. In this case the styling will be a plus.

Honda wants people to know that it isn't an ordinary car, and it will appeal to the status concious consumers of So Cal where the car will be leased.

One reason the Prius was so popular was because it was immediately recognizeable as a Prius. It didn't look like anything else, so when someone showed up in it, it became a quasi status symbol.

Same thing with the FCX. The people who lease it are going to want people to know that it is different.

[DA92CB7]

Styling is subjective. In this case the styling will be a plus.

Honda wants people to know that it isn't an ordinary car, and it will appeal to the status concious consumers of So Cal where the car will be leased.

One reason the Prius was so popular was because it was immediately recognizeable as a Prius. It didn't look like anything else, so when someone showed up in it, it became a quasi status symbol.

Same thing with the FCX. The people who lease it are going to want people to know that it is different.

except the FCX looks alot like a Prius . . .

[owequitit]

except the FCX looks alot like a Prius . . .

Um Not quite sure how you figure.

The Prius is much smaller, and has vertical tail lights, while the FCX is much larger and has horizontal head and tail lights, not to mention much more overall detailing than the Prius.

Besides, the CB7 looks like a 1991 Chevy Lumina, by those standards. And a Ford Taurus, and a Honda Civic, and a 3rd gen Maxima (and a 2nd for that matter), a Toyota Camry, Toyota Cressida, Nissan Sentra, and a 1st gen Pontiac Grand Am.

Hardly unique overall styling theme or proportions. "Aero" styling was a trend too.

[Clemson90Accord]

Everyone is saying how hydrogen cars are the way of the future but I have my doubts. I am concerned at the fact that the process of producing the hydrogen fuel is very emission heavy. I'm sure the process of producing gasoline or ethanol is the same way. I really wonder what is the way of the future. My worry is that Hydrogen is a way that the oil companies will stay alive. They will just switch from supplying gas to H2. I just hope that Hydrogen is not just another pipe dream.

[owequitit]

Everyone is saying how hydrogen cars are the way of the future but I have my doubts. I am concerned at the fact that the process of producing the hydrogen fuel is very emission heavy. I'm sure the process of producing gasoline or ethanol is the same way. I really wonder what is the way of the future. My worry is that Hydrogen is a way that the oil companies will stay alive. They will just switch from supplying gas to H2. I just hope that Hydrogen is not just another pipe dream.

Hydrogen production is only emmissions heavy because of the infrastructure.

If the hippies would understand that there is no such thing as a free lunch, pull their heads out of their asses, and stop blocking the most promising form of energy production, we could be making hydrogen much more cleanly.

As far as the "oil" companies supplying hydrogen, that is probably a good bet.

But if you actually look into how the oil industry works, instead of making blind assumptions, you would see that you aren't being screwed as badly as you think you are.

Seek to understand, and THEN to remedy.

[Clemson90Accord]

Hydrogen production is only emmissions heavy because of the infrastructure.

If the hippies would understand that there is no such thing as a free lunch, pull their heads out of their asses, and stop blocking the most promising form of energy production, we could be making hydrogen much more cleanly.

As far as the "oil" companies supplying hydrogen, that is probably a good bet.

But if you actually look into how the oil industry works, instead of making blind assumptions, you would see that you aren't being screwed as badly as you think you are.

Seek to understand, and THEN to remedy.

I guess my first post sounded like I am really anti big oil. That wasn't what I was trying to say but when I re-read it I realized I wrote it that way. Oh well.

I don't intend to make blind assumptions. I don't think that I am getting screwed by the oil companies. I think that they are charging what they can get for gas and have every right to.

You might be right about the infrastructure thing though. Some articles say that H2 is emission heavy because it takes so much energy to break the strong bonds that it forms with other elements and that it is an inefficient form of energy because of that. I am just worried that we are going to piss away money on things that might not truely make sense. However, if we never try things we will never know so I am at a loss for what to think.

[owequitit]

I guess my first post sounded like I am really anti big oil. That wasn't what I was trying to say but when I re-read it I realized I wrote it that way. Oh well.

I don't intend to make blind assumptions. I don't think that I am getting screwed by the oil companies. I think that they are charging what they can get for gas and have every right to.

You might be right about the infrastructure thing though. Some articles say that H2 is emission heavy because it takes so much energy to break the strong bonds that it forms with other elements and that it is an inefficient form of energy because of that. I am just worried that we are going to piss away money on things that might not truely make sense. However, if we never try things we will never know so I am at a loss for what to think.

Sorry, I re-read that too, and I didn't really mean to make it sound like you specifically. I have just noticed that a lot of people in general do that.

I think they are coming up with new ways to break hydrogen down, but honestly, you are correct.

Since the laws of thermodynamics basically dictate that we can't make more energy than we use, and we can't even break even, at some point in time, it is costing us more energy than what we are getting out of hydrogen.

If we are burning fossil fuels to make that hydrogen, that we are completely assinine simply because we will have to burn more BTU's of fossil fuel, than what we will get from the hydrogen. Theoretically. I have yet to see something substantial that can refute that.

However, I think those that make such decisions are aware of that, which is one reason that it is still extremely limited distribution wise.

If one good thing comes from the "man made" Global Warming B.S., it will be the new push toward more nuclear power. People don't realize just how little waste is actually produced through nuclear generation vs other methods. Yes, it is hard to deal with the waste, but then again, it isn't like burning coal, gas or anything else is without consequence either.

Nuclear energy isn't going to suddenly make it 100% efficient, but at least we won't be burning 2 gallons of fuel in a generating station to save 1 gallon at the pump somewhere.