Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Honda makes first hydrogen cars
- Thread starter edesignuk
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Since we won't be around for the next 5 billion years, I am sure the sun won't mind if we steal some of its hydrogen fuel.
Some folks seem to be missing that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles ARE electric vehicles. There is no internal combustion engine, only an electric motor. The energy to generate the electricity is stored in hydrogen, rather than the lithium in a Li-ion battery.
The major disadvantages to batteries are that energy density is much lower, meaning that, for the same fuel weight, you get farther on hydrogen than you do on a battery, and recharge time is much larger on a battery. For long distance trips, this is crucial. If I have to drive 500 miles, and I have to wait 3 hours every 150 miles to recharge my battery, I'm not going to bother. Put a hydrogen fueling station every 100 miles along my route, each one equipped with solar/wind power for producing hydrogen fuel, and I have a solution that's as convenient as gasoline, produces no pollution, and emits no carbon.
It can work if we have the will to get fueling stations installed and upgrade our energy production means to something better than carbon-based fuel burning.
The major disadvantages to batteries are that energy density is much lower, meaning that, for the same fuel weight, you get farther on hydrogen than you do on a battery, and recharge time is much larger on a battery. For long distance trips, this is crucial. If I have to drive 500 miles, and I have to wait 3 hours every 150 miles to recharge my battery, I'm not going to bother. Put a hydrogen fueling station every 100 miles along my route, each one equipped with solar/wind power for producing hydrogen fuel, and I have a solution that's as convenient as gasoline, produces no pollution, and emits no carbon.
It can work if we have the will to get fueling stations installed and upgrade our energy production means to something better than carbon-based fuel burning.
For the most part, the technology is complete. The only problem is getting enough money to support the production of more hydrogen cars and fueling stations. California is planning to build the "Hydrogen Highway".
As for paying? I'd much rather pay $7.00 a litre for hydrogen that will not pollute our atmosphere and our lungs then pay to fill my car up with gasoline.
If we were smart we would power them using solar panels, wind turbines, heat from power plants, etc. Or place them near areas with lots of wave action and tap into the amazing amount of energy being released there, or we could power them using a nuclear power source (probably one of the more viable options). There's quite a few ways to power them in a relatively clean manner.
As for the waste, we could treat it in the our sewage treatment plants or we could dry it out and dispense of it in landfills similar to those used for batteries (since its really just salts and some heavy metals). Or it could be stored in special areas, the salted processed, and then sold. There are a few ways we could do this and have it be fairly environmentally friendly, its just going to cost a few bucks.
Hydrogen seems like it's really is not a great option.
1) If we're getting the H from oil... how does that help
2) If you do the electricity through water method, where are we getting all this power from. Coal? You can say hydroelectric and wind and solar but those really aren't great options. Solar currently is too expensive, not efficient enough, and won't work in the dark. Wind doesn't work everywhere either. Hydroelectric is good but only if you're in a place where you can build one.
Nuclear is the most efficient technology we have. Yes there are the waste issues but other countries such as France and Germany somehow deal with it. Radioactive materials are carried around anyways.
There are cons to everything and nothing will ever get done if everyone fights. I am sure that if they tried to build a hydroelectric plant somewhere people would complain it would affect fish migration. Very very very few power plants are being built now because of environmentalists, meanwhile our energy reserve is dwindling and pretty soon everyone's electrical bills are going to go up more in addition to power issues caused by the lack of power being produced.
I still think in the long run Electric cars are the best option, so long as we can get energy to charge them.
1) If we're getting the H from oil... how does that help
2) If you do the electricity through water method, where are we getting all this power from. Coal? You can say hydroelectric and wind and solar but those really aren't great options. Solar currently is too expensive, not efficient enough, and won't work in the dark. Wind doesn't work everywhere either. Hydroelectric is good but only if you're in a place where you can build one.
Nuclear is the most efficient technology we have. Yes there are the waste issues but other countries such as France and Germany somehow deal with it. Radioactive materials are carried around anyways.
There are cons to everything and nothing will ever get done if everyone fights. I am sure that if they tried to build a hydroelectric plant somewhere people would complain it would affect fish migration. Very very very few power plants are being built now because of environmentalists, meanwhile our energy reserve is dwindling and pretty soon everyone's electrical bills are going to go up more in addition to power issues caused by the lack of power being produced.
I still think in the long run Electric cars are the best option, so long as we can get energy to charge them.
For nearly everyone, paying $7.00 a litre would be more then unreasonable. Gas is already enough at $1.50 a litre and that's all people complain about.
The whole point of hydrogen vehicles is to save the environment. If hydrogen costs $7.00 a litre to fill up, the majority of people would much rather pay $1.50 for gas, thus not helping the environment at all. If hydrogen was say $1.00-$2.00 a litre I could see it, but saving the environment won't happen unless it comes down to about the same price as gas.
I'd much rather see it at the same price of gas. $1.50 per litre wouldn't be so bad using hydrogen, but even cheaper would be nice.
Except a liter of hydrogen will take you much farther than a liter of gasoline, unless you are driving an exceptionally efficient gasoline car.
LOL now that is funny....
There is so much more energy in a liter of Gas than a liter of hydrogen....
I keep forget how much BS and myths there are out there about hydrogen...l.
You are forgetting hydrogen tech uses electric motors which is much more efficient than combustion engines.
A little off topic but a company called Genepax recently introduced a car that runs on water. If it's not a scam to draw investors I wonder if there is any market for them in the future.
But how are we going to get all of our electricity? ALL the ways we get our electricity are very pollutant to the environment, except i suppose wind farms, but that only accounts for about 5% of the US's electricity prodcution, and it also takes up huge amounts of land, and can harm bird wildlife. Even dams create problems for nature since it requires huge flooding of preceding land.
Again I repeat my self. At getting 50% of the energy from gas, which is about what car engines can do, it still has more energy per volume.
As for the water car. 100% bs. It is impossible to do that because it takes a lot of energy to crack water into hydrogen oxygen. H2O is an very stable molecule and the laws of chemistry and Thermodynamic both say it is impossible.
The only problem I have with hydrogen is who's going to be controlling it.
If the gas bastards that control the fuel now are just vying for time to get their hydrogen station up to charge us a little less for the "H" than the gas I am going to be royally pissed.
The last thing we need are the old grey haired oil company execs selling us hydrogen at $3 a gallon when it could be $1 a gallon just because we are used to shelling out $4.50 a gallon.
And forget about it if Hydrogen is more expensive than gasoline. There is no way in the world I would adopt a hydrogen powered car if I have to shell out $7 a gallon for a 10 gallon tank and I am getting the same fuel efficiency. I'd rather drive my regular gas car and continue pumping toxins in the ozone.
Reminds me of those nut job nutritionists and "eat organic" supports that are starving because they can't afford an $8 muffin or $12 loaf of organic bread.
p.s. I never heard about a water powered car that converts H2O to H then uses the H to power the motor, but I have heard and seen a water powered car that just uses a tank of compressed H2O to push the car around. Or was that compressed air.... I forget.
If the gas bastards that control the fuel now are just vying for time to get their hydrogen station up to charge us a little less for the "H" than the gas I am going to be royally pissed.
The last thing we need are the old grey haired oil company execs selling us hydrogen at $3 a gallon when it could be $1 a gallon just because we are used to shelling out $4.50 a gallon.
And forget about it if Hydrogen is more expensive than gasoline. There is no way in the world I would adopt a hydrogen powered car if I have to shell out $7 a gallon for a 10 gallon tank and I am getting the same fuel efficiency. I'd rather drive my regular gas car and continue pumping toxins in the ozone.
Reminds me of those nut job nutritionists and "eat organic" supports that are starving because they can't afford an $8 muffin or $12 loaf of organic bread.
p.s. I never heard about a water powered car that converts H2O to H then uses the H to power the motor, but I have heard and seen a water powered car that just uses a tank of compressed H2O to push the car around. Or was that compressed air.... I forget.
Sigh, I'll try again.
Yes, you are correct, there is more total free energy in 1 L of gasoline. In a typical internal combustion engine 80% of that energy is wasted, either due to incomplete combustion or (mostly) heat.
Via honda's fcx website, the clarity captures roughly 60% of the energy. We'll take their word for it for lack of better data.
See your problem?
Also, from Honda's website: the fcx goes 280 miles on 4.1 kg of compressed hydrogen gas. Gasoline has a density of 0.784 kg/L, so to go the same distance on 4.1 kg of gasoline, so 4.1 kg of gasoline is roughly 5.23 L. To go 270 miles of 5.23 L of gasoline is an efficiency of 80.88 km/L, or 1.24 L/100 km. For Americans, this equates to about 195 miles per gallon.
This is making some assumptions, and the real world numbers seem to be closer to about 100 mpg equivalent, but this argument that that hydrogen contains less energy than gasoline is completely specious, since we can't even approach getting all of that energy out of gasoline.
Of course, some batteries carry an even higher efficiency, but that's another story.
Link to Honda website:
http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/specifications.aspx
OK, I hear that, and I also noted Rodimus Prime said 50%, which is a pipe dream.
I believe I read that it is closer to 30%.
Still highly inefficient, compared to other fuels.
Diesel for one.
Yeah no... Btw way you waste heat stuff.
The real number is between 50-60% lost to heat. Not 80%....
Oh btw that "extra range" you forget you have the battery which have to be drained to 30% or so before the hydrogen is going to start being used...... So that really messes with the numbers.
That 280 needs be reduced by a hell of a lot to work. Take the Toyta Hybrid (first generation) and see what it pulls. The things like the Volt pull a hell of a lot more MPG.
Sorry hydrogen is so full of feel good and BS.....
Hydrogen is a con, don't fall for it.
Honda is a great company, but we still need to show them the way.
Hydrogen vehicles were introduced as a bait & switch by car manufacturers as part of the process of killing the CA zero emissions laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_killed_the_electric_car
Honda's home 'hydrogen' power system actually runs on natural gas (a fossil fuel). The hydrogen cells are just storage (at a loss, of course). It's old-thinking from companies mired in 'old ways'.
Electric vehicles worked in the 1990s. They'd be even better today if there was a will to do it. Support Tesla any way you can. http://www.teslamotors.com/ They run off home solar panels and cost $4 per recharge giving 200 miles!!
CA leads the world at cleaning up electricity generation. And the US already has electricity generation capacity to charge 80% of vehicles, without building any new power stations. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061211221149.htm
Hybrids should also be avoided. The Toyota Prius now has a 1.3 litre petrol engine. It wasn't that long ago, a car that size was entirely powered by a 1.3 litre petrol engine!! The original Prius used a quarter of the fuel of its petrol counterpart. Now it uses half the fuel ! More bait & switch, I'm afraid.
Fusion reactors still require more power input than they output.
Focus on the future - electric. Don't be distracted.
Honda is a great company, but we still need to show them the way.
Hydrogen vehicles were introduced as a bait & switch by car manufacturers as part of the process of killing the CA zero emissions laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_killed_the_electric_car
Honda's home 'hydrogen' power system actually runs on natural gas (a fossil fuel). The hydrogen cells are just storage (at a loss, of course). It's old-thinking from companies mired in 'old ways'.
Electric vehicles worked in the 1990s. They'd be even better today if there was a will to do it. Support Tesla any way you can. http://www.teslamotors.com/ They run off home solar panels and cost $4 per recharge giving 200 miles!!
CA leads the world at cleaning up electricity generation. And the US already has electricity generation capacity to charge 80% of vehicles, without building any new power stations. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061211221149.htm
Hybrids should also be avoided. The Toyota Prius now has a 1.3 litre petrol engine. It wasn't that long ago, a car that size was entirely powered by a 1.3 litre petrol engine!! The original Prius used a quarter of the fuel of its petrol counterpart. Now it uses half the fuel ! More bait & switch, I'm afraid.
Fusion reactors still require more power input than they output.
Focus on the future - electric. Don't be distracted.
Hydrogen is a load of crap. It'll never happen and it doesn't make sense anyways. Waste of a perfectly good couple $B of R&D. It's the farcical dream of the fruits-n-nuts loonies who run CARB. They believe cars will exhaust rainbows and unicorns if they legislate it so.
And in the mean time, encourage the use of technology like Clean Diesel, which is here right now today, and can give 40-50 MPG's in your average sedan or 60+ MPG's in a hatchback.
And costs about $5.15 per gallon around here. Like I'm going to buy a car that uses fuel that costs more than what I'm currently using when I could just buy a hybrid that gets the similar MPG with cheaper fuel.
I'm just going to buy a Tesla.
Electric works right now and gets 135 mpg. What's it going to be, the past or the future? The only choice you can make is - now.
Toyota had an all electric 4x4 in the mid 1990s - you can have anything you want, just keep asking for it. You vote every time you spend a dollar. Vote wisely.
If all government departments chose to run electric-only tomorrow, you'd have electric vehicles by Friday.