Honda's first production Hydrogen Cell car rolls off the line

[NorthSideSox72]

Honda has begun mainline production of the FCX Clarity, its hydrogen fuel cell car, and the first production car rolled off the line today. This first run will be very limited, and only a few hundred will be produced in the first few years. Only California has fueling stations for it, in three cities. But the car itself is getting rave reviews, and has a 270 mile tank range. It gets the equivalent of 74 mpg (hydrogen), and is a zero emission vehicle. I'm not sure how much a gallon of hydro costs, though. The lease price includes maintenance and collison coverage, at $600/month.

 

They received 50,000 applications from people wanting to buy it, but only accepted some of those that were near the three current fueling stations.

 

Small step, but still a step.

 

Trib article.

 

[DBAHO]

There needs to be plenty of those made over the next decade.

 

Are American Motoring Companies starting to develop these type of vehicles also? Because, otherwise they'll be left in financial ruin.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Are American Motoring Companies starting to develop these type of vehicles also? Because, otherwise they'll be left in financial ruin.

Because they are in financial ruin is why they cant make them. They cant afford "10 years from now" thinking because they wont BE here in 10 years. It's a catch 22.

[NorthSideSox72]

There needs to be plenty of those made over the next decade.

 

Are American Motoring Companies starting to develop these type of vehicles also? Because, otherwise they'll be left in financial ruin.

GM will supposedly put out a plug-in hybrid in 2010 (Chevy Volt). It can run battery-only for about 40 miles, then goes to a hybrid system much like many hybrids on the road today. Ford has a couple hybrid cars on the market. Nothing from Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep yet, that I have seen. Ford and GM are talking more hybrids, traditional, in the next year or two (new models). GM has the Saturn VUE Green Line v2 coming out later this year, which will be I believe their first true hybrid on the market.

 

American companies are making inroads, but they are behind their Japanese counterparts thus far.

 

The interesting thing to watch, IMO, is the differeing visions of what direction things will go. GM decided to go heavy on the Flex Fuel thing, but that is turning into a debacle. Ford is thinking gas-electric hybrids are the way. Honda and BMW are both full speed on hydrogen fuel cell cars, thinking that's the big target. Toyota will be first to Gen-2 gas-electric hybrids with big mileage. Nissan puts out its first gas-electric hybrid this year, an Altima, available only in certain states. Subaru in Japan and Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep in the US are the two big ones that seem to be sitting on the sidelines - I'm not sure what they're waiting for, or if they just don't have the capital to make it happen yet.

 

ETA: Beyond the traditional car companies, Tesla puts out its first electric car this year (an expensive sports car), a sedan next year, and a cheaper one in 2 years. And there is some Chinese company looking to do an all-electric here soon as well.

 

[Balta1701]

Honda has begun mainline production of the FCX Clarity, its hydrogen fuel cell car, and the first production car rolled off the line today. This first run will be very limited, and only a few hundred will be produced in the first few years. Only California has fueling stations for it, in three cities. But the car itself is getting rave reviews, and has a 270 mile tank range. It gets the equivalent of 74 mpg (hydrogen), and is a zero emission vehicle. I'm not sure how much a gallon of hydro costs, though. The lease price includes maintenance and collison coverage, at $600/month.

 

They received 50,000 applications from people wanting to buy it, but only accepted some of those that were near the three current fueling stations.

 

Small step, but still a step.

 

Trib article.

The problem with hydrogen cars right now is that our only way of generating hydrogen is still...fossil fuels. Unlike say, oil, there's no gigantic reservoir of hydrogen on earth that can be simply tapped as an energy source. The hydrogen must be generated by electrolysis, using some sort of energy to split oxygen and hydrogen from water molecules or by splitting it off of other hydrogen containing substances (i.e. natural gas). So when you say it is a zero emission vehicle...it's zero emissions at the spot where the vehicle is. But it's not zero emissions in terms of the total process any more than my car would be if I said it was zero emissions if I didn't count the engine. Its also entirely possible that depending on the source of the hydrogen, a hydrogen car could put out more total pollution and CO2 per mile than a similar gas fueled car, if for example, the energy source being used was coal, and you've inserted an extra step instead of taking electricity directly and using that for energy by inputting the "Converting to hydrogen" step, and every step you add allows that pesky 2nd law of thermodynamics to come in and screw you over more.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I want to add a little bit of my interpretation of the situation...

There is no presidential "guidance" as to what the next fuel standard will be. THis leads to a problem with what the next-gen of cars will be as well. Here's why:

 

To roll out a non-oil based car, you need the infrastructure. That will require large amounts of time and resources. But, what IS the next-gen? We dont know. E85? Hydrogen? All Electric? No one knows where to go, and it's too expensive to put your fingers in all the pies, so you have to pick one and go for it.

 

Without STRONG leadership from a president, nothing will happen. He needs to say "in 20 years, we will be all ____, let's make it happen". "We chose to go to the moon" type of statement.

Edited June 16, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[Balta1701]

Without STRONG leadership from a president, nothing will happen. He needs to say "in 20 years, we will be all ____, let's make it happen". "We chose to go to the moon" type of statement.

My problem with this statement is it's really, really hard to predict exactly where breakthroughs are going to happen. Let's hypothesize that President Obama gives a speech like that in March of next year calling for a hydrogen economy, and we spend a few tens of billions of dollars on it over the next few years. Then, 5 years from now, there's a major breakthrough in capacitor technology that dramatically pushes down the cost of those devices as an energy transportation mechanism well beyond where hydrogen is sitting at the time. What do you do? Do you admit you're wrong and shut down the program you've dumped so much money in to? Do you dismantle the infrastructure you've invested in? Do you ignore the newer technology in the hopes that H2 will catch up within a couple years?

[HuskyCaucasian]

My problem with this statement is it's really, really hard to predict exactly where breakthroughs are going to happen. Let's hypothesize that President Obama gives a speech like that in March of next year calling for a hydrogen economy, and we spend a few tens of billions of dollars on it over the next few years. Then, 5 years from now, there's a major breakthrough in capacitor technology that dramatically pushes down the cost of those devices as an energy transportation mechanism well beyond where hydrogen is sitting at the time. What do you do? Do you admit you're wrong and shut down the program you've dumped so much money in to? Do you dismantle the infrastructure you've invested in? Do you ignore the newer technology in the hopes that H2 will catch up within a couple years?

That's a very fair point. Unfortunately thats the problem with ANY technology. It will not be an easy choice. I think it might be VERY easy for all electric and hydrogen to co-exist. The problem is simply getting OFF oil. There is no debate that we have a finite amount, so a transition needs to be made, and sooner rather than later.

Edited June 16, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[southsider2k5]

I want to add a little bit of my interpretation of the situation...

There is no presidential "guidance" as to what the next fuel standard will be. THis leads to a problem with what the next-gen of cars will be as well. Here's why:

 

To roll out a non-oil based car, you need the infrastructure. That will require large amounts of time and resources. But, what IS the next-gen? We dont know. E85? Hydrogen? All Electric? No one knows where to go, and it's too expensive to put your fingers in all the pies, so you have to pick one and go for it.

 

Without STRONG leadership from a president, nothing will happen. He needs to say "in 20 years, we will be all ____, let's make it happen". "We chose to go to the moon" type of statement.

 

I don't want any President telling us what car to buy/build. The market needs to decide that, not the government.

[lostfan]

I'm mildly psyched about this. The actual news is basically meaningless since we don't have a fuel cell station network, but I imagine if everything keeps moving in this direction, it eventually will.

 

I was reading from somewhere that hydrogen can be produced from solar power too?

[Balta1701]

I'm mildly psyched about this. The actual news is basically meaningless since we don't have a fuel cell station network, but I imagine if everything keeps moving in this direction, it eventually will.

 

I was reading from somewhere that hydrogen can be produced from solar power too?

Yes it certainly can be produced from solar, wind, etc. It's just not a very efficient use of the energy generated by those sorts of plants right now.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I don't want any President telling us what car to buy/build. The market needs to decide that, not the government.

The market doesnt know where to go. And we can NOT have 5 different standards. There needs to be a single standard (2 if you include all electric)

This "the market dictates" is great most of the time, but sometimes you need to have a heavy fist for continuity sake.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I was reading from somewhere that hydrogen can be produced from solar power too?

That is correct. As it stands today, hydrogen has the best potential of the "next-gen" fuels. But as was pointed out, one major breakthrough and the ballgame changes.

[Balta1701]

One other thing, this one came out a few years ago by one of the guys on my Thesis committee...Hydrogen can also be pretty harmful for the atmosphere. It's very hard to contain at 100% levels, and it has the ability to do damage when it gets in to the atmosphere, possibly including some combination of increased storm activity due to more clouds and damage to the ozone layer.

[StrangeSox]

I was reading from somewhere that hydrogen can be produced from solar power too?

 

You just need energy to perform electrolysis. It doesn't matter where it comes from.

 

What does matter is that fossil fuels are still far and away the cheapest and easiest forms of energy, and that's not likely to change.

 

The market doesnt know where to go. And we can NOT have 5 different standards. There needs to be a single standard (2 if you include all electric)

This "the market dictates" is great most of the time, but sometimes you need to have a heavy fist for continuity sake.

 

And who says the government does know where to go? What if they mandate a certain path, and it turns out to be completely unprofitable and unworkable? And for that matter, how is the US government going to dictate to Asia and Europe what technology to pursue?

 

Kennedy and "man on the moon by the end of the decade" was different because NASA is a government entity while GM, Ford, Honda, BMW, etc. are not.

Edited June 16, 2008 by StrangeSox

[bigruss]

For the president stepping in argument, I would like to point out that its best to let the market dictate where it goes. Its a capitalist market, the best invention will make the most profits (hypothetically). Just look at HD DVD and Bluray, the president didnt come in and say we all need one of them and dont buy the other, the market dictates who will survive.

[HuskyCaucasian]

For the president stepping in argument, I would like to point out that its best to let the market dictate where it goes. Its a capitalist market, the best invention will make the most profits (hypothetically). Just look at HD DVD and Bluray, the president didnt come in and say we all need one of them and dont buy the other, the market dictates who will survive.

DVDs dont rule the transit of the masses.

There ARE governing bodies that standardize and dictate TV/Radio broadcasting (imagine 2 different broadcasting standards trying to co-exist) and the internet (imagine if the internet was more than just TCP/IP. I'd be a mess)

Edited June 16, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't want any President telling us what car to buy/build. The market needs to decide that, not the government.

 

I'm mildly psyched about this. The actual news is basically meaningless since we don't have a fuel cell station network, but I imagine if everything keeps moving in this direction, it eventually will.

 

I was reading from somewhere that hydrogen can be produced from solar power too?

 

Yes it certainly can be produced from solar, wind, etc. It's just not a very efficient use of the energy generated by those sorts of plants right now.

 

Great line of quotes here, follow it through. SS2K5 is right, the market needs to go with this in the right direction. Balta is also right, in that right now, hydrogen needs to be generated through a process that requires power like any other - and the current power grid is still mostly fossil fuels.

 

But, I think that having cars run this way is still a strong possible future solution. And even though the President shouldn't be promoting a single solution, I think the Prez and Congress can and should invest in many different solutions, and even non-solution-specific programs, that create a bunch of new tech. The ultimate answer will probably be distributed over many systems anyway, and we get to see which ones have what advantages and disadvantages.

 

So, I'm psyched too, because this is a step forward on one of many possible solutions.

 

[southsider2k5]

The market doesnt know where to go. And we can NOT have 5 different standards. There needs to be a single standard (2 if you include all electric)

This "the market dictates" is great most of the time, but sometimes you need to have a heavy fist for continuity sake.

 

I don't want the "heavy fist" to be wealded by the same people who currently mis-regulate everything under the sun. This are the same people who have ruined the financial industry because of their complete lack of knowledge of the financial markets with Sarbines Oxley, and yet we are supposed to trust them with the direction of our transportation industry? No thanks. I am not interested in seeing them screw up something else. Hell it is the governments pork barrel spending on the transportation system for cars that has put us into this situation in the first place. Instead of building more roads for the people back home, they should have been investing in rapid transit systems for the good of the country. If they decide this, we'll end up with the betamax of transit.

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't want the "heavy fist" to be wealded by the same people who currently mis-regulate everything under the sun. This are the same people who have ruined the financial industry because of their complete lack of knowledge of the financial markets with Sarbines Oxley, and yet we are supposed to trust them with the direction of our transportation industry? No thanks. I am not interested in seeing them screw up something else. Hell it is the governments pork barrel spending on the transportation system for cars that has put us into this situation in the first place. Instead of building more roads for the people back home, they should have been investing in rapid transit systems for the good of the country. If they decide this, we'll end up with the betamax of transit.

I agree. There does not HAVE to be some single solution. The only "standards" that matter are inteface-related - in other words, how things plug into each other. As for what the energy source is, or how its then used, those can and should have some variability. That helps encourage modernization, and is less risky.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Great line of quotes here, follow it through. SS2K5 is right, the market needs to go with this in the right direction. Balta is also right, in that right now, hydrogen needs to be generated through a process that requires power like any other - and the current power grid is still mostly fossil fuels.

 

But, I think that having cars run this way is still a strong possible future solution. And even though the President shouldn't be promoting a single solution, I think the Prez and Congress can and should invest in many different solutions, and even non-solution-specific programs, that create a bunch of new tech. The ultimate answer will probably be distributed over many systems anyway, and we get to see which ones have what advantages and disadvantages.

 

So, I'm psyched too, because this is a step forward on one of many possible solutions.

I should make it clear that I am not against the president saying we should invest heavily in many options to se what works best. That is obviously important to do. The problem is there is little to no leadership on this.

[HuskyCaucasian]

If they decide this, we'll end up with the betamax of transit.

Betamax > VHS

[southsider2k5]

I agree. There does not HAVE to be some single solution. The only "standards" that matter are inteface-related - in other words, how things plug into each other. As for what the energy source is, or how its then used, those can and should have some variability. That helps encourage modernization, and is less risky.

 

The market decides these things, and pretty quickly. People decide what they like and buy it. The rest of the companies either change or go bankrupt. If you get into government decesion-making, you bring in a whole other slew of problems, the big one being who is wispering into their ears. With the money the candidates are raising right now, you can damned well bet there are going to be people influencing the direction the country goes here, if it is left up to the public sector, and not the private.

[lostfan]

I don't want the "heavy fist" to be wealded by the same people who currently mis-regulate everything under the sun. This are the same people who have ruined the financial industry because of their complete lack of knowledge of the financial markets with Sarbines Oxley, and yet we are supposed to trust them with the direction of our transportation industry? No thanks. I am not interested in seeing them screw up something else. Hell it is the governments pork barrel spending on the transportation system for cars that has put us into this situation in the first place. Instead of building more roads for the people back home, they should have been investing in rapid transit systems for the good of the country. If they decide this, we'll end up with the betamax of transit.

I'm okay with the gov't giving businesses and people incentives and nudging them in a desired direction, though.

[iamshack]

Fund studies, and more studies, and then some more after that. And then fund some more, for good measure.

 

Do not LEAP into something without knowing as much as possible what we are getting into.

 

Ahem, ethanol. Cough, nickel-based batteries in hybrid vehicles.