Honda FCX Clarity

[Inkara1]

http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/

In short:
An electric car with the electricity generated by a hydrogen fuel cell. It has a range of about 270 miles and can be refilled in a few minutes. It has a top speed of about 100 miles an hour. The only emissions from the car are water and a bit of heat. Hydrogen can come from a variety of sources, meaning it can still be found should fossil fuels run out.

The main downsides right now are the cost and the lack of hydrogen stations around the country. It's going to initially be available for a lease of $600 per month, and although that includes collision insurance and maintenance, that's still pretty steep. Also, it's limited to a few areas of Southern California to allow access to fuel and service. That's all as of today, though... as demand grows, more hydrogen stations will open, making a trip from, say, LA to Vegas possible, and Honda has dealers all over the nation, and it would be easy enough to train the service departments and send the parts out as needed. Hopefully time will improve the cost to a level where the average new car buyer can afford it.

Should those two factors be ironed out, cars such as the FCX Clarity will make a much better answer than plug-in electrics such as the GM EV1, which had too little range and took too long to recharge to be commercially viable, and hybrids, which are a nice middle step but still use gas and still emit greenhouse gases.

Remaining to be seen: long-term reliability of the components of the vehicle, how long the fuel cell will last, and what replacement would cost.

 

[chcr]

Plug in hybrids seem more viable at this point. I think fuel cells still have a way to go to be dependable enough to set out for Vegas in. I like the idea of fuel cells, I'm just not sure they're ready for mass consumption, given the expense and the current level of the techonology. As a fleet car for a major city like LA though, I think it's and excellent idea. At todays gas prices I think that extra lease cost will be insignificant in a TCO calculation and let's be honest, those prices are unlikely to come down anytime soon.

 

[Luis G]

and hybrids, which are a nice middle step but still use gas and still emit greenhouse gases.

I think a pretty good hybrid as of now is this one http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9960833-54.html

Unlike with a hydrogen fuel cell car, the Scorpion's "hydrogen on demand" system wouldn't require a high-pressure hydrogen storage tank. Nor would a driver need to find and fill up at a hydrogen fueling station.

Instead, electricity from the Scorpion's alternator sends an electric charge through the water in a storage tank, fracturing molecules and releasing hydrogen, which is injected into the motor, explained Ronn Maxwell, CEO of Ronn Motor in Horseshoe Bay, Texas.

"This means that as we're driving down the road, we're producing hydrogen in real time, and blending it with gasoline at a ratio of 30 to 40 percent," he said.

The hydrogen-gasoline hybrid technology comes from Hydrorunner.

"We are still using gasoline, but we're gonna be using 40 percent less," Maxwell said. "The hydrogen cleans up the emissions. It actually consumes carbon. It's not the perfect car, not electric, but it is something that'll work right now."

 

[Gonz]

Why can' they make a car that could (re)charge itself...spinning axles pass along current to a charging system. Since electricity can be manipulated, even a few volts could be increased.

I live the idea of hydrogen. Step one is to get it on the streets. With that done, ingenutiy & marketing witll take over.

 

[chcr]

Why can' they make a car that could (re)charge itself...spinning axles pass along current to a charging system. Since electricity can be manipulated, even a few volts could be increased.

It's called regenerative braking and as far as I know almost every electric car (even conversions) does it. The thing you have to remember is that even with 100% efficiency (which is functionally impossible) you can only get as much energy out as you put in. OTOH, you could bury cables under the road and power them by magnetic induction.

I live the idea of hydrogen. Step one is to get it on the streets. With that done, ingenutiy & marketing witll take over.

The real problem with hydrogen is it costs more than gas. A lot more. The extraction technology needs improvement. As far as transportation goes, the race is on. Battery technology, hydrogen technology or something else? It's a matter of what becomes most cost effective fastest.

 

[Inkara1]

Cost-effective and also with the fewest compromises needed from drivers/owners. Other than cost (which is to be expected because of the general newness of the the technology), the only limitation of having a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle is the lack of stations, which would be (comparatively) easy to remedy by building more hydrogen stations. Plug-in electric cars would need to get the range up to at least 500 miles or get full-charge times down to less than 15 minutes. That would make taking a long-distance trip possible, as (with option 1) one could get a long day's worth of driving in between charges, or (option 2) one could charge up the car in a quick enough amount of time to make it feasible instead of driving 150 miles and recharging the car for eight hours (that's fine for a commuter car but shuts out people/families that can only afford one car). It just seems to me like they'll have an easier time figuring out how to build hydrogen stations in Mojave, Barstow, Needles, etc. than they will getting the batteries to charge in 15 minutes.

As for the cost of hydrogen, it's not really more than gasoline, at least to the end consumer in Southern California.

As for the cost of hydrogen, the stations that currently exist in California are selling it for about $5/kg retail. With gasoline currently running close to $4/gallon in the same area, the FCX will be a lot cheaper to operate. Assuming 25 mpg at $4, an Accord would cost $43.20 to drive 270 miles. The same distance in an FCX Clarity at $5/kg will run $19.85.

 

[A.B.Normal]

Plug-in vehicles are also gonna be a drain on the electric grid,unless they build more coal fired generating plants or Nuclear reactors,so where is the improvement to the environment?

 

[chcr]

Ink, at current technology levels it is expensive to produce hydrogen. It uses much more energy to isolate hydrogen than you get out of it as a fuel. Currently the most efficient way to isolate hydrogen is from natural gas, a fossil fuel. Getting it from water uses about four times more energy than it produces. This is the real problem with hydrogen. In fact, it's fairly easy to convert existing internal combustion engines to run on it, it's just not very efficient.

AB, it depends on whose report you read, of course, but even taking into account coal fired plants, plug ins still pollute much less than regular internal combustion cars. Discounting the waste (which can be dealt with, in fact has been dealt with) nuclear plants are non-polluting.

Does it seem like I've done a lot of reading on the subject? In fact, I've been considering converting a car to electric for commuting but it's still not cost effective. It's getting close though...

Of course my main concern is being able to drive 80+ mph everywhere I want to go and to be able to afford it, but that's just me.

 

[A.B.Normal]

AB, it depends on whose report you read, of course, but even taking into account coal fired plants, plug ins still pollute much less than regular internal combustion cars. Discounting the waste (which can be dealt with, in fact has been dealt with) nuclear plants are non-polluting.

Does it seem like I've done a lot of reading on the subject? In fact, I've been considering converting a car to electric for commuting but it's still not cost effective. It's getting close though...

Aren't there a lot of areas running peak use on their grids during peak times/seasons ,wouldn't take many cars to push the use up.Charging them during non-peak times would work eleviate that ,but in a "I want it now "society ,are we really gonna want to wait until off peak times to charge.

 

[chcr]

Aren't there a lot of areas running peak use on their grids during peak times/seasons ,wouldn't take many cars to push the use up.Charging them during non-peak times would work eleviate that ,but in a "I want it now "society ,are we really gonna want to wait until off peak times to charge.

Well, I'm certainly not. Must be somebody else's responsibility.

Seriously though, every time I hear someone say, "Why aren't we doing this" or "why aren't we doing that" I wonder what part of the equation they're conveniently ignoring, don't you? I still think a combination plug-in hybrids, regular hybrids and more fuel efficient standard cars are the near term solution. Mass transit would be nice but we'd have needed to start building it ten years ago.

So, why aren't we building more nuclear power plants? My popcorn needs microwaving.

 

[Altron]

I think Light Rails are pretty cool... they're far cheaper than subways to construct, and are suitable for suburbs. a LRT with 40 people is going to be even cheaper than 40 electric cars.

 

[Inkara1]

Most electric car charging would be off-peak because the electric car runs completely against the entire "I want it now" ideal. It takes hours and hours to charge the batteries. If you plug in one for 15 minutes, you might be able to drive a mile or two to the store and back.

The thing I like about a plug-in hybrid, as I understand them, is that you can plug it in to have the batteries fully charged, allowing you to run on electricity only for a while... possibly far enough to get to work if it's on surface streets and not too many miles away, thus burning no gas at all for that trip. But otherwise, it acts as a regular hybrid, mixing gas and electric like a regular hybrid does.

Altron, as you get older, you'll soon be introduced to the concept of NIMBYism.

 

[Altron]

Not In My Back Yard?

There's a pretty decent light rail system here... it's relatively cheap, and you can go pretty far on it. A lot cheaper to construct than the subway as well.

 

[Inkara1]

Trying to get anything like that approved and past all the legal challenges is a chrome-plated bitch.

 

[Altron]

It isn't if they're putting it in Jersey City... the light rail, the new stores and mall, and new apartment buildings are all trying to bring in yuppie money. half that shit is on tax abatement anyway, and of course all of it is only charging half of the regular state sales tax.