Hydrogen Car Is Here, a Bit Ahead of Its Time

probe

New York Times article:

OFTEN, it is the smallest of gestures that deliver the most powerful messages. I was reminded of this last month when I settled into the driver’s seat of the FCX Clarity, a sedan powered by fuel cells that Honda will begin leasing to a handful of private customers next summer. Fresh from a briefing that detailed the car’s NASA-grade complexity, I wondered what procedures might be required to start the reaction of hydrogen and oxygen and bring the power supply to life.

In fact, it took nothing more than inserting an entirely conventional metal key into a normal-looking switch and pushing a power button much like the one that starts the Honda S2000 sports car. The familiarity of the steps — deliberate gestures, I think, to convince drivers that the cars of our future aren’t so frightening after all — reinforced the message of the meeting I had just left: the FCX Clarity is ready now.

Scanning the dashboard for unmarked switches, mysterious buttons and puzzling controls, I looked for the inevitable loose ends of an engineering prototype being hustled toward production. Seeing nothing unfamiliar beyond a dazzling 3D dashboard display — a large power meter where my eye expected a tachometer, with a glowing ball in its center to track hydrogen consumption — I noted essentials like the parking brake and seat adjustment, all familiar operations. There really wasn’t going to be much out of the ordinary about the way this car drove, at least.

That theme was repeated by another, less apparent gesture: no engineer or technician from Honda came along on my test drive, both a sign of confidence in the car’s road-readiness and an indication of how normal it is.

Normalcy is a recurring, and intentional, theme of the FCX Clarity. It is refueled using a high-pressure connector tucked behind a typical gas-cap door on the rear fender. It has a handsome exterior, a nice audio system and plenty of knee room in the back. (A design analysis is at nytimes.com/autos) Anyone who has driven a Toyota Prius will feel at home with the dash-mounted gear selector and the park button.

Honda has not announced who will get the FCX Claritys or how many will be available in Southern California, where the program begins. Households will be selected, in part, for their ready access to hydrogen stations. Honda is realistic about the slow growth of a hydrogen infrastructure as well as the viewpoint that fuel cells may not seem to make much sense using current methods of hydrogen production.

But there are practical matters to consider as well: compared with alternatives like plug-in hybrids, the onboard energy supply is quicker to replenish and has a better travel range, 270 miles. Moreover, in Honda’s full-cycle calculation, a fuel-cell vehicle can reduce carbon dioxide output by half compared with a gasoline vehicle. In the United States, where much electricity is produced from coal, it is even better than a battery-electric car, Honda says.

It will be a while before drivers selected for the three-year, $600-a-month Clarity lease program (it includes insurance and maintenance) will think about such topics. Instead, they will revel in its extraordinary silence. It drives away from a stop so quietly that it seems to be holding its breath, much as a hybrid does before the gas engine starts. Accelerating onto Interstate 10, though, incites a turbinelike zing — quite pleasant, really, if not as satisfying as the guttural bark of a V-8 — and the Clarity blends effortlessly into traffic. The sound of a pump at work breaks the silence occasionally, but it has none of the clicking and whirring evident in the previous-generation FCX.

Honda says the performance is on par with a similar-size car powered by a 2.4-liter engine, and it should know, as the 2008 Accord LX has just such an engine. The comparison is apt. The FCX motor produces 134 horsepower and 189 pound-feet of torque; the Accord’s in-line four makes 177 horsepower and 161 pound-feet. The Clarity weighs nearly 3,600 pounds, and while that is 400 pounds lighter than its predecessor, the Accord is some 300 pounds lighter yet. The wheelbases of the Clarity and Accord are identical at 110.2 inches.

On a drive up the Pacific Coast Highway to Malibu, the Clarity lacked nothing except engine noise, and it easily kept pace with traffic when I turned off and headed up into the canyons. It wouldn’t be smart (or useful) to look for the edge when driving what is probably a million-dollar handbuilt car, but the FCX handled curves admirably and effortlessly. The electric power steering was a bit quick for my taste, but more than making up for that were the marvelous brakes showing none of the coarseness of the Prius’s regenerative braking.

In fact, the degree of refinement was impressive throughout, from the polished look under the hood to the absence of rattles and squeaks one might excuse in a car that is still far from an assembly-line product. The FCX is no lab rat.
Skip to next paragraph

While the FCX seems fully qualified for local duties, its practicality for longer trips will have to wait on the availability of hydrogen. In this latest version, the range is a reasonable 270 miles on a single refill of the 5,000 p.s.i. tank behind the rear seat. Most fuel-cell vehicles using compressed hydrogen are now built around 10,000 p.s.i. tanks for greater range.

Honda chose to take a different route, emphasizing efficiency over capacity.

For instance, the 100-kilowatt fuel-cell stack is a Honda-built vertical-flow design, more powerful than the previous design, yet smaller — about the size of a carry-on suitcase — and lighter. The engineers reduced the load on the air-conditioning system by bringing climate control directly to the occupants, using fans in the seats to blow air cooled or warmed by thermoelectric elements.

Honda calculates its hydrogen consumption as the equivalent of 68 miles a gallon, all the more impressive considering the car’s excellent performance and accommodations for four — and the fact that it is fitted with the same tires as an Accord V-6, rather than special high-mileage rubber.

Until now, writing about fuel cells has been a no-risk proposition, with no reality check looming, no looking back when the cars arrived in showrooms to see whether one had been embarrassingly optimistic. Way back in the 1990s, a physicist assured me that fuel-cell cars were 20 years away — and always would be.

Honda has a different timeline; it considers this version of the FCX a production car, ready to roll into showrooms from a manufacturing and operational standpoint. Issues like fuel supply — potentially addressed by a grow-your-own solution called the Home Energy Station — remain unsolved, as does the matter of cost. The FCX Clarity still costs several orders of magnitude more than it will have to when true retail sales, without a Honda-subsidized lease, begin.

Maybe it’s not yet time to call back the pessimistic physicist — it’s my cousin Howard, actually — but the day is drawing closer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/automobiles/autoreviews/09HONDA.html

.probe

Chardee MacDennis

was on top gear last week wasn't it?

there is no way at the moment to transport the hydrogen they were saying....

BendiBus

Honda is realistic about the slow growth of a hydrogen infrastructure as well as the viewpoint that fuel cells may not seem to make much sense using current methods of hydrogen production

2 of the most important points regarding Hydrogen as a transportation fuel.

In the United States, where much electricity is produced from coal, it is even better than a battery-electric car, Honda says

How is the hydrogen produced, if not by using the very same electricity as for an electric car?

Way back in the 1990s, a physicist assured me that fuel-cell cars were 20 years away — and always would be.

I'm not QUITE as pessimistic as the writers cousin Howard, but I still think hydrogen as a transport fuel is decades away and we can't wait that long.

Hondas car is a valuable piece of R&D I'm sure, but I believe it will remain nothing more than research for a long, long time.

probe

Call_me_al wrote: »

was on top gear last week wasn't it?

there is no way at the moment to transport the hydrogen they were saying....

Don't believe everything you see on some trash tabloid TV channel!

The only transportation of hydrogen that is required is in the car's tank.

Filling stations will make their own hydrogen on-site from electricity - using electrolysis. Hydrogen is an energy carrier - the transportation of the energy will take place over the electricity grid. Some hydrogen will probably be produced from energy generated locally at filling stations. Honda is also working on a home energy station which will produce hydrogen in the garden/driveway - and provide home heating and hot water from waste energy generated in the process.

[Where you need to transport hydrogen, companies like http://www.amminex.net/ are working on a solution].

.probe

probe

BendiBus wrote: »

2 of the most important points regarding Hydrogen as a transportation fuel........

Firstly, may I declare that I am agnostic as to the energy carrier (hydrogen, any type of battery, capacitor or something else to store the energy) so long as the system is powering an electric motor rather than some polluting antiquated engine technology to drive the vehicle.

One wouldn’t want a gasoline lawnmower type of setup twisting the drum in your washing machine - pulling the starter…. the washing machine’s exhaust pipe spewing out in the garden where your children are playing while their clothes are being washed in the utility room, etc. Not to mention the noise, and maintenance of the equipment …. Yet people are willing to put up with this polluting technology for transport – despite the fact that the electric motor has infinitely superior performance – by any measure of efficiency, speed, acceleration, pollution, etc.

When the NY Times author feels that “fuel cells may not seem to make much sense using current methods of hydrogen production” I suspect that he is thinking of the fact that most hydrogen stations in the US are selling hydrogen that has been tanked in and/or has been produced from hydrocarbons. And even if the filling station makes the H2 on-site, American electricity is filthy – given the antiquated generation infrastructure in the US which is largely reliant on coal or other hydrocarbons.

But even in a market driven monoculture like the US, the falling cost of green energy and the rising cost and increasing scarcity and price of hydrocarbon energy, combined with the low production and maintenance cost of the electric car (aside from the “fuel tank” at the moment), the transition will happen much faster than people expect.

In any event the focus should be on electrified, reliable, integrated public transport. One hundred thousand electric cars in use in a city cause as much chaos as one hundred thousand internal combustion engine dinosaurs.

.probe

BendiBus

probe wrote: »

But even in a market driven monoculture like the US, the falling cost of green energy and the rising cost and increasing scarcity and price of hydrocarbon energy, combined with the low production and maintenance cost of the electric car (aside from the “fuel tank” at the moment), the transition will happen much faster than people expect.

I've no doubt that green energy will capture a rapidly increasing share of the energy market even in the US.

However my view is that any green electricity produced is of far more use in displacing coal fired power plants and other polluting electricity generators than in use for producing hydrogen.

Until such time as electricity from the grid is considered 'clean' I don't support large scale hydrogen production from electricity.

By the time that happens who knows what technology will look most promising for transportation energy - battery, hybrid etc. Hydrogen may not even feature.

probe

BendiBus wrote: »

I've no doubt that green energy will capture a rapidly increasing share of the energy market even in the US.

However my view is that any green electricity produced is of far more use in displacing coal fired power plants and other polluting electricity generators than in use for producing hydrogen.

Until such time as electricity from the grid is considered 'clean' I don't support large scale hydrogen production from electricity.

By the time that happens who knows what technology will look most promising for transportation energy - battery, hybrid etc. Hydrogen may not even feature.

Unfortunately Mr BendiBus one can’t stand on the podium and conduct the orchestra, getting the flutes to play (wind / green gen “rolled out” all over the place) and after that overture has finished get the percussion instruments going (in the form of the green gen electricity to H2 phase). There is no alternative to shaking the trees and getting everybody to perform together.

In any event it is all part of a bigger picture of grid interconnection with the rest of Europe. At the moment things are stifled by the ESB mafia who appear determined to keeping their grip on the electricity market – in the same way as eircom maintains its grip on the local loop [and only 30% of Irish households have access to broadband as a result (of the high price of broadband)]. Zero % of Irish households have access to electricity at continental European prices (9-10c per kW) as a result – [from memory the ESB charge around 15c per kW]. Pay up or they strike and the lights go out. Mafia style. The situation is little different in GB, which Ireland is in the process of connecting with. A pathetic, low capacity link to dirty, expensive electricity (in terms of the size of the markets and Ireland’s green energy production potential).

.probe

BendiBus

probe wrote: »

Unfortunately Mr BendiBus one can’t stand on the podium and conduct the orchestra, getting the flutes to play (wind / green gen “rolled out” all over the place) and after that overture has finished get the percussion instruments going (in the form of the green gen electricity to H2 phase). There is no alternative to shaking the trees and getting everybody to perform together.

Can I have that again in English please, and with a clear point?

Pay up or they strike and the lights go out. Mafia style

Oh, and it's the French, German, Spanish, Italian utilities/transport companies that do most of the striking in Europe, not the Irish!

Stay focussed, stop sneering and I'll keep listening to you

the_syco

The reason that this can catch on over in the US, but not here (for at least 5 years), is nuclear power. Clean, cheap electricity.

BendiBus

the_syco wrote: »

The reason that this can catch on over in the US, but not here (for at least 5 years), is nuclear power. Clean, cheap electricity.

As far as I know, American electricity is filthy. They use loads of coal.

SeanW

Yes, but nuclear power is set for something of a renaissance, the U.S. already makes the most electricity from nuclear power of any country in the world.

Unfortunately they also make a lot more electricity from coal.

Where these cars would really go down a treat is in France - 90%+ of their electricity comes from nuclear and hydroelectric sources, and AFAIK they already have a good peak demand management system.

Of course we could always build an interconnector from Cork to Cherbourg and get some of the good stuff (like most of France's neighboors do) but given the 'Greens' dogmatic nuke-bashing religion, don't hold your breath.

seamus

Yep, without nuclear we're not going to get much closer cleaner energy use. There's also an additional efficiency barrier which needs to be broken. Even nuclear is quite inefficient, it's just good for producing a shedload of cleanish energy. Steam turbines are pretty old at this stage.

Wasn't there some guy recently who had a built a hydrogen injection system for modern gasoline engines? The conversion cost was fairly big (compared to the cost buying a bigger engine), but it sort of overcame the transportation issue because you didn't have to carry a 50L tank of hydrogen, just a smaller canister which improved gasoline efficiency dramatically.

probe

seamus wrote: »

Yep, without nuclear we're not going to get much closer cleaner energy use. There's also an additional efficiency barrier which needs to be broken. Even nuclear is quite inefficient, it's just good for producing a shedload of cleanish energy. Steam turbines are pretty old at this stage.

Wasn't there some guy recently who had a built a hydrogen injection system for modern gasoline engines? The conversion cost was fairly big (compared to the cost buying a bigger engine), but it sort of overcame the transportation issue because you didn't have to carry a 50L tank of hydrogen, just a smaller canister which improved gasoline efficiency dramatically.

Nuclear is turning the clock back, has unknown whole life cost, and is unsuitable in a small market like Ireland with a typical demand of 5 GW - because you need at least two nuclear power stations to provide redundancy for each other. Finland's new nuclear plant will end up costing €2.3 bn per GW for installation - ignoring the cost of dealing with the leftovers for the next x thousand years. But if some other sucker is producing it (and it is properly managed by them) OK for trade.

.probe

probe

BendiBus wrote: »

Can I have that again in English please, and with a clear point?

Herr BendiBus is clearly not in subtle mode this evening. In bog simple English you have a chicken and egg situation. You need to get lots of windmills turning to generate clean electricity, and vehicle batteries/H2 infrastructure/grid connections up and running to "store" the energy because of the volatile nature of the main green energy sources (wind, wave and solar). You can't wait for the green energy infrastructure to come on stream before you dive into a H2/battery vehicle economy. You have to swallow the fact that some of the electricity being converted into H2 will come from less than pure sources in the hiatus period.

Oh, and it's the French, German, Spanish, Italian utilities/transport companies that do most of the striking in Europe, not the Irish!

When was the last electricity blackout caused by a strike in France, Germany, Spain or Italy please?

.probe

BendiBus

probe wrote: »

When was the last electricity blackout caused by a strike in France, Germany, Spain or Italy please?

No idea but EDF & GDF had major walkouts in mid-November. The trains were in bits too. Didn't the German trains go on strike in October or November as well? My point was you seem to attack Irish industry as being more prone to strikes than our continental cousins and I'm disputing this.

When was the last electricity blackout caused by a strike in Ireland? I don't know the answer to that one either!

You have to swallow the fact that some of the electricity being converted into H2 will come from less than pure sources in the hiatus period.

I've no problem with energy storage technologies. In fact I'm totally in favour. My issue is with using this stored energy as a transportation fuel (that's what this thread is about but I should have been clearer in previous posts). Stored energy (in batteries, hydrogen etc) is still better used displacing 'dirty' electricity generation (peak shaving) than in fuelling cars.

probe

BendiBus wrote: »

No idea but EDF & GDF had major walkouts in mid-November. The trains were in bits too. Didn't the German trains go on strike in October or November as well? My point was you seem to attack Irish industry as being more prone to strikes than our continental cousins and I'm disputing this.

When was the last electricity blackout caused by a strike in Ireland? I don't know the answer to that one either!

Rail services in France and Germany have been unpredictable of late. France never has strikes of course - they are invariably called an "action sociale" on the station information systems. But if an Italian train isn't running in France, due to a strike in Italy, the word Grève appears! While France is the sole remaining communist country in Europe (with a strong capitalist streak), French strikes usually don't last long, and there is normally an alternative of sorts.

However moving back to the point - I have never heard of, or come across an electricity blackout in France or Germany or Italy or Spain as a result of a strike. Such as the ESB mob are threatening for the Christmas or the new year in Ireland.

I'm not attacking "Irish industry" as being strike prone at all - there would be no reason to. However over the last few decades Ireland has been victim of strikes in state controlled industries - and the ESBites have been a leading mover in this game.

.probe

Capt'n Midnight

nuclear power ?
spend the money on insulation grants it will be cheaper and you won't need the station at all.

hydrogen is not very practical as a fuel store
http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/id30.html

2. Hydrated ethanol (alcohol which still has some water content, not 200 proof) can be used in a fuel cell system with no loss in efficiency compared with 100 % high-grade ethanol, opening the way for the use of ethanol that can be used at a lower cost.

probe

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

nuclear power ?
spend the money on insulation grants it will be cheaper and you won't need the station at all.

A properly insulated home in Ireland doesn't need any hydrocarbon heating system given the mild climate. Waste energy from other domestic activities will suffice.

Insulation includes insulation from radon gas intake in this context. And a high level of insulation requires green furniture and fittings - e.g. no carpets or cheap furniture which incorporate formaldehydes. Radon and formaldehydes are carcinogens that can get concentrated in a heavily insulated building.

.probe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formaldehyde

Capt'n Midnight

no need to scaremonger

as long as you have normal ventillation you should be fine, if paranoid then just use heat recovery ventillation to increase your air flow

radon is only really a problem in some areas, since it's primarilly associated with granite, ans since this comes from below the house ventillating the sub floor should be neough - or maybe even sealing the floor would do

SeanW

probe wrote: »

Nuclear is turning the clock back, has unknown whole life cost, and is unsuitable in a small market like Ireland with a typical demand of 5 GW - because you need at least two nuclear power stations to provide redundancy for each other.

Firstly, but a few hundred thousand (or even millions) of your hydrogen wonder-cars onto the road, and it won't that small for very long.

Probably more like 15GW and if there's no demand management, maybe even higher with wider variances between peak and off-peak demand.

Secondly, you don't need a large traditional installation such as the 1.6GW EPR (the Finnish reactor type, also being built at Flamanville in France), there are a number of small nuclear technologies in existance and there is an emerging PBMR (Pebble Bed Modular Reactor) reactor type which already have applications before the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

But like I said, if Ireland were to embrace hydrogen/electric vehicles wholesale, a couple of EPRs wouldn't go unwanted.

Finland's new nuclear plant will end up costing €2.3 bn per GW for installation - ignoring the cost of dealing with the leftovers for the next x thousand years.

CCGT plants cost about €1,000,000 per MW capital cost - and that's before you factor in the cost of the natural gas and the costs to society of the associated energy insecurity, as well as the pollution and global warming effects none of which arise from nuclear plants which use far less fuel, which is then fissioned instead of burned.
And Finland has already solved its waste problem.

But if some other sucker is producing it (and it is properly managed by them) OK for trade.

Like I said, how about an interconnector from Ireland to France?

probe

SeanW wrote: »

Firstly, but a few hundred thousand (or even millions) of your hydrogen wonder-cars onto the road, and it won't that small for very long.

........

Ireland is not a country of early adopters for virtually any new technology. Dozy adopters would be a more apt description. 70% of households haven’t even woken up to broadband yet. You won’t see unmanageable numbers of battery or H2 powered cars on Irish streets any day soon. So no excuse for nuclear reactors please! And, as one has been at pains to point out, battery and H2 cars are the perfect complement to wind and other green energy sources – due to their energy storage ability. An electric car isn’t going to get much traction in the market if it hasn’t a range of at least 250 km. But few people drive 250 km every day. So each of these units will be “self financing” in terms of the green energy production/demand balance – assuming that Ireland gets net smart metering working efficiently.

And when Ireland reaches 1,000,000 electric cars, there won’t be a problem getting the necessary green energy installed capacity – providing the ESB’s network monopoly is crushed!

While Ireland may be a nation of late adopters, the biggest impediment to progress is the ESB and eircom state sponsored monopolies, and the grip they have on their respective networks.

.probe

fictionaire

Never mind the hyrdogen car, what about the waterpowered car:
http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html