Up, up and away – the hydrogen car is here (Honda production car)

[jpak]

http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/features/article2744803.ece

There was every conceivable type of environmentally friendly car on show at the Tokyo motor show last week, but Honda scooped them all by announcing it will be putting the world’s first hydrogen fuel cell car into production next year.

The car will travel an estimated 270 miles at speeds of up to 100mph and will produce only water vapour from its exhaust. It is expected to cost £50,000 and will be available initially only in America and Japan.

To be unveiled at the Los Angeles motor show next month, the car is expected to closely follow the design of the FCX concept car. Inside, it will provide space for four in a futuristic looking cabin. Instead of a fuel gauge there will be a range meter that tells you how far you can travel with the hydrogen left in the tank.

It is also expected to feature lithium-ion batteries to recover energy during braking. The transmission will be gearless so you will simply select neutral or drive.

<more>

[Yael]

1. Thats a good looking car

[nebula]

2. The British are the worst writers in the world

Trying to read that article (in full) gave me a headache.

[Trillo]

3. Interesting quote

Not surprisingly Honda . . . said further development of hybrids was no more than an expensive sideshow. “Carrying a battery is dead weight,” said Fukui . . .

[NNadir]

4. Gee. I hope it doesn't drive Tesla out of business.

There's going to be a long line of seven millionaires at Governor Hydrogen Hummer's hydrogen station.

[tinrobot]

5. ...and where is the nearest hydrogen filling station?

... Bueller?


... Bueller?

[Gregorian]

6. Thank you.

I was scratching my head trying to reply to this post. Maybe it only has reverse?

Why the hell are we pursuing something that is bullshit? I know I'll get flamed from the hydrogen fans around here. But it IS bullshit. There is no hydrogen economy. And for good reasons. So why the god damned car? We could be developing batteries. And in case I do get replies, I'll reply to them in advance. If you simply remove the hydrogen part of the equation, you end up with an electric car. There is no need for the hydrogen. It's a useless step.

[Nederland]

7. You are assuming...

...that the storage problem cannot be solved. If the storage problem is solved in a cost effective manner, hydrogen is perfect.

[Gregorian]

11. No I'm not making that assumption.

I'm simply saying it is an unnecessary step. Simply remove it. If one looks at the details, it isn't worth pursuing hydrogen. This isn't just me speaking, this is the leading scientists who do hydrogen fuel cell research. Off the top of my head I believe Ulf Bossel is one name. I'm busy, or I'd google it.

[Nederland]

14. More details please

If you are going to convince me, you're going to have to come up with something a little more persuasive than: "trust me, I'm right". The fact that one of the most successfully automobile companies in the world is pursuing hydrogen tells me that there is a significant debate among smart people as to whether or not hydrogen is a good choice. Despite what many people on DU think, the CEO of a billion dollar company like Honda isn't an idiot. If it really were as clear cut as you make it sound, Honda would not be following the path it is following. Ulf Bossel is just one person with an opinion, he is not God.

[Gregorian]

15. Do a quick Google search on "hydrogen versus batteries".

It's easy to find the basic arguments on the first few hits. Where do we get the hydrogen? It takes a huge amount of electricity to create.

Hydrogen is simply a way to keep us using what we are already using. Petroleum. And much more of it. Especially if we start to produce hydrogen via the grid.

For example, there's this off of one of the design forums-

http://boards.core77.com/viewtopic.php?p=82033
Just one post-

The Hydrogen fuel cell is not a viable solution in the long run. Let me separate the hype from the facts for you.

* The advocates of hydrogen say that pound per pound, it provides more energy than just about anything, but what they don't tell you is that hydrogen is such a light, low-density gas that a few pounds of it take up such a huge volume at atmospheric pressure that in order to have any usable density, it has to be compressed. Keep in mind, the Hindenburg was kept afloat with hydrogen; it's a lighter gas than even helium. Compressing hydrogen to a significantly usable density is very energy intensive, and even after compression, you have to transport far more of it to even get the equivalent amount of energy from a lesser quantity of other fuel.

* Hydrogen is conventionally obtained by electrolyzing water using electricity generated from some existing source of energy. The hydrogen then needs to be compressed to a usable density, which takes energy. Then, a lot of this stuff has to be transported, consuming yet more energy. All for what? for use in a fuel cell, where it is turned back into electricity. Each step along the way incurs a significant loss in energy.

In other words, hydrogen isn't a real fuel; we use other fuels to generate electricity to electrolyze water to get hydrogen. If it's not fuel, what is it? A very lousy battery.

Hydrogen is such a dead end that the European Fuel Cell symposium has decided that it will no longer accept entries, papers, nor talks on hydrogen fuel cells; no matter how efficient we make it, we simply can't make using electricity to electrolyze water to make hydrogen just to turn in back into electricity more efficent than simply using the electricity in the first place.

Here are some links you may want to read on this matter, re: the European Fuel Cell symposium rejecting Hydrogen:
http://www.thewatt.com/article-1210-nested-1-0.html

http://www.thewatt.com/article-1238-nested-1-0.html

The future is not about the hydrogen economy; it's about the electron economy, and the technology to grasp it is already within reach. Hydrogen is just a pipe dream and a red herring thrown in our way by the ones with the interests to protect. The oil companies want to convert their hydrocarbons into hydrogen + sequestered carbon, but not because it's a better technology; this is to keep us dependent on them no matter what fuel it is that we end up using.

[Strelnikov_]

16. Yep

[Nederland]

19. Several errors in here

1) It assumes electrolysis as the source of hydrogen.
2) It assumes centralized hydrogen sources.
3) It assumes fuel cell vehicles will not have regenerative braking.
4) It only includes charge losses, not discharge losses.
5) It fails to account for the difference in energy density.

[Gregorian]

20. Those are good points.

So far, batteries are well below the energy density of hydrogen. But that is changing.

If we had easily produced hydrogen, there would be one less major obstacle out of the way. But we're still forced to compress it to really high pressures in order to obtain energy density that is reasonable. And that still doesn't address the infrastructure hurdles. I think the safety issues alone are worth serious consideration. But I'll admit that at present, batteries still present their own problems regarding easy application. But that too is changing.


Regenerative braking is good. But only a fractional improvement. Especially at higher speeds, wind resistance is a cubic function. Of course body design minimizes that. And also in stop and go circumstances regenerative braking becomes far more effective in recovering energy. But regenerative hydrogen production? Electric is elegant in simplicity, ultimately.

[Nederland]

18. The fundamental flaw in Bossel's conclusion

...is the notion that hydrogen will be obtained by electrolysis and that fuel cells will run on pure hydrogen. I fail to see why those assumptions are guaranteed, especially the first one.

[Maven]

8. Hydrogen is a net energy loser, and this is a farce

that will only blind people further to the realities we face vis-a-vis automobiles and fossil fuels in general.

Hydrogen is not a replacement for oil.

[Gregorian]

12. But George Bush told us it is! :)

And you know, anything that comes out of his mouth is...

[4_TN_TITANS]

13. I agree...

Anyone care to guess how much fossil fuel is still used to process the hydrogen? It all leads back to the carbon.

[bananas]

9. It happened faster than expected!

"previous estimates for a viable fuel cell car ranged from 10 years to 20 years in the future"

[razzleberry]

10. this story is crap

the Honda FCX gets recycled, every few years.
Do not believe, any of it.

[Strelnikov_]

17. I would like to ask how, exactly, the hydrogen

will be generated.

Seems a kWh of electricity, whatever source, could be more efficiently used by a battery electric vehicle.


Not surprisingly Honda, flushed with the success of its fuel cell project, said further development of hybrids was no more than an expensive sideshow. “Carrying a battery is dead weight,” said Fukui, adding that Toyota’s enthusiasm for plug-ins was fuelled by the desire to be able to use more mains electricity produced by US-sourced coal rather than imported oil.

“It is highly political,” said Fukui, “but, technically speaking it’s nonsense.”


How do you say 'talking out both sides of your mouth' in Japanese?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x118792

Japan's Honda Motor Co. said this week it planned to release a more affordable hybrid car by 2009, hoping to boost sales among consumers who now find eco-friendly vehicles too expensive.

Japanese automakers pioneered hybrid-engine cars such as Honda's Civic Hybrid, which save fuel costs and have proven to be major hits at a time of soaring oil prices.

At the Tokyo Motor Show, Honda showed off the CR-Z concept car, a lightweight sports model with a hybrid engine.

"Honda plans to release a new hybrid vehicle in 2009 that is more affordable than the Civic Hybrid," Takeo Fukui, president of Japan's second largest automaker, told reporters at the industry show held in Tokyo's outskirts.