[Scott1280]

Honda produces first commercial hydrogen cars

June 16, 2008 4:02 AM PDT
Honda produces first commercial hydrogen cars
Posted by Candace Lombardi 3 commentsHonda has begun the first commercial production ever of a hydrogen fuel cell-powered car.

The Japanese auto manufacturer ceremoniously launched production of its first hydrogen-powered vehicles on Sunday in Tochigi, Japan, and announced its first customers.

The four-door sedan, called the FCX Clarity, runs on electricity from a fuel cell battery that is powered by hydrogen fuel. Steam is the car's only byproduct. The car can get a combined (city and highway driving) fuel efficiency of about 72 miles per kg of H2 which, according to Honda's own estimates, is the equivalent of getting about 74 mpg on a gas-powered car. The car can be driven for about 280 miles before needing to be refueled.

Honda CEO Takeo Fukui drives some of the first people who will lease the Honda's FCX Clarity hydrogen car: actress Laura Harris (front passenger), Southland Industries CFO Jon Spallino (behind her), and film producer Ron Yerxa.

(Credit: Honda Motor)While many automakers and researchers have prototypes and pilot projects using hydrogen fuel to power fuel cells on electric hybrids, or as a direct fuel source for vehicles with converted engines, there are no hydrogen-powered cars yet available for lease or purchase to the average consumer.

Honda claims it is the first company to have a hydrogen car certified for regular commercial use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

"This is an important day in the history of fuel cell vehicle technology and a monumental step closer to the day when fuel cell cars will be part of the mainstream," John Mendel, executive vice president of American Honda, said in a statement.

The car was first introduced as a concept vehicle in 2005 at the Tokyo Motor Show.

Starting in July, Honda plans to offer the hydrogen-powered FCX Clarity through a lease program at three dealerships in California: Power Honda Costa Mesa, Honda of Santa Monica, and Scott Robinson Honda in Torrance. Honda also plans to make the cars available in Japan. The cars will be leased on a three-year basis for about $600 per month, according to Honda.

Among the first owners will be actor/author Jamie-Lee Curtis and her husband, filmmaker Christopher Guest of This is Spinal Tap fame.

Of course, hydrogen cars are not going to be widely driven anytime soon. Honda estimates it will lease only about 200 FCX Clarity vehicles over the next three years. In order to qualify for the lease program, would-be owners will have to meet a set of criteria that includes living within range of a hydrogen filling station, according to Honda. As part of the lease, Honda will provide any necessary service or maintenance on the vehicle.

The biggest obstacle in mass market appeal of hydrogen-powered vehicles vs. gas-electric hybrids is where owners could fill up their cars. While the U.S. Department of Energy has been a proponent of hydrogen fuel as an alternative energy for cars, there are currently few hydrogen-fuel filling stations the U.S.

There is also an ongoing debate as to whether hydrogen, a fuel that requires large amounts of electricity to be produced, is truly energy efficient when its entire food chain is taken into consideration.

 

[MakoMike]

Honda public relations flack wrote:
Of course, hydrogen cars are not going to be widely driven anytime soon. Honda estimates it will lease only about 200 FCX Clarity vehicles over the next three years. In order to qualify for the lease program, would-be owners will have to meet a set of criteria that includes living within range of a hydrogen filling station, according to Honda. As part of the lease, Honda will provide any necessary service or maintenance on the vehicle.

The biggest obstacle in mass market appeal of hydrogen-powered vehicles vs. gas-electric hybrids is where owners could fill up their cars. While the U.S. Department of Energy has been a proponent of hydrogen fuel as an alternative energy for cars, there are currently few hydrogen-fuel filling stations the U.S.

There is also an ongoing debate as to whether hydrogen, a fuel that requires large amounts of electricity to be produced, is truly energy efficient when its entire food chain is taken into consideration.

So now tell me why this such a great momentious announcement?

 

[Scott1280]

MakoMike wrote:
Honda public relations flack wrote:
Of course, hydrogen cars are not going to be widely driven anytime soon. Honda estimates it will lease only about 200 FCX Clarity vehicles over the next three years. In order to qualify for the lease program, would-be owners will have to meet a set of criteria that includes living within range of a hydrogen filling station, according to Honda. As part of the lease, Honda will provide any necessary service or maintenance on the vehicle.

The biggest obstacle in mass market appeal of hydrogen-powered vehicles vs. gas-electric hybrids is where owners could fill up their cars. While the U.S. Department of Energy has been a proponent of hydrogen fuel as an alternative energy for cars, there are currently few hydrogen-fuel filling stations the U.S.

There is also an ongoing debate as to whether hydrogen, a fuel that requires large amounts of electricity to be produced, is truly energy efficient when its entire food chain is taken into consideration.

So now tell me why this such a great momentious announcement?


Because Mike, they "DID SOMETHING" and that's all that matters. You don't have to do the right thing, a smart thing, or something that makes sense, just "something" and you are a hero!

Hydrogen, without massively increased electricity production capacity is only going to sap an already overburdened grid. But hey, so what? At least they did "something".

 

[MakoMike]

yeah, Like Obama will bring change, I'm sure he will I just hope he doesn't kill us all with his unthought out changes.

 

[GradySailfish]

So what is the solution to the energy issues we are facing today and will continue to face into the future ?

I know I'm going to hear, "Drill ANWAR" but thats only a temporary solution to the problem. There is only a finite amount of oil left, in both ANWAR and the worlds oil reserves.

At least we're making some sort of progress with such technology. Chevy is going to build an electric car called the Volt in a few years.

 

[SinkerBouncer]

Scott1280 wrote:
MakoMike wrote:
Honda public relations flack wrote:
Of course, hydrogen cars are not going to be widely driven anytime soon. Honda estimates it will lease only about 200 FCX Clarity vehicles over the next three years. In order to qualify for the lease program, would-be owners will have to meet a set of criteria that includes living within range of a hydrogen filling station, according to Honda. As part of the lease, Honda will provide any necessary service or maintenance on the vehicle.

The biggest obstacle in mass market appeal of hydrogen-powered vehicles vs. gas-electric hybrids is where owners could fill up their cars. While the U.S. Department of Energy has been a proponent of hydrogen fuel as an alternative energy for cars, there are currently few hydrogen-fuel filling stations the U.S.

There is also an ongoing debate as to whether hydrogen, a fuel that requires large amounts of electricity to be produced, is truly energy efficient when its entire food chain is taken into consideration.

So now tell me why this such a great momentious announcement?


Because Mike, they "DID SOMETHING" and that's all that matters. You don't have to do the right thing, a smart thing, or something that makes sense, just "something" and you are a hero!

Hydrogen, without massively increased electricity production capacity is only going to sap an already overburdened grid. But hey, so what? At least they did "something".

First of all, they built it before we did.
Remember when most new technologies were innovated here in the USA??

Secondly, even if it takes a disproportionate amount of electricity to create hydrogen, not every country creates most of its power with oil and coal.
Some countries had the foresight to build nuclear power plants. Those countries?I believe the French lead the way?..will have the opportunity to further reduce their oil imports and reduce CO2 emissions at the same time.

Just because we are allowing ourselves to fall behind the rest of the developed world?and that includes upgrading our ?overburdened grid,? it doesn?t mean that we should roll our eyes over promising advancements.

Sort of reminds me of how the horse and buggy crowd laughed at the first new-fangled horseless carriages.

 

[MakoMike]

SinkerBouncer wrote:
Scott1280 wrote:
MakoMike wrote:
Honda public relations flack wrote:
Of course, hydrogen cars are not going to be widely driven anytime soon. Honda estimates it will lease only about 200 FCX Clarity vehicles over the next three years. In order to qualify for the lease program, would-be owners will have to meet a set of criteria that includes living within range of a hydrogen filling station, according to Honda. As part of the lease, Honda will provide any necessary service or maintenance on the vehicle.

The biggest obstacle in mass market appeal of hydrogen-powered vehicles vs. gas-electric hybrids is where owners could fill up their cars. While the U.S. Department of Energy has been a proponent of hydrogen fuel as an alternative energy for cars, there are currently few hydrogen-fuel filling stations the U.S.

There is also an ongoing debate as to whether hydrogen, a fuel that requires large amounts of electricity to be produced, is truly energy efficient when its entire food chain is taken into consideration.

So now tell me why this such a great momentious announcement?


Because Mike, they "DID SOMETHING" and that's all that matters. You don't have to do the right thing, a smart thing, or something that makes sense, just "something" and you are a hero!

Hydrogen, without massively increased electricity production capacity is only going to sap an already overburdened grid. But hey, so what? At least they did "something".

First of all, they built it before we did.
Remember when most new technologies were innovated here in the USA??

Secondly, even if it takes a disproportionate amount of electricity to create hydrogen, not every country creates most of its power with oil and coal.
Some countries had the foresight to build nuclear power plants. Those countries?I believe the French lead the way?..will have the opportunity to further reduce their oil imports and reduce CO2 emissions at the same time.

Just because we are allowing ourselves to fall behind the rest of the developed world?and that includes upgrading our ?overburdened grid,? it doesn?t mean that we should roll our eyes over promising advancements.

Sort of reminds me of how the horse and buggy crowd laughed at the first new-fangled horseless carriages.


It was press release released in the USA and aimed at a USA audience, so I questioned its relevance to the USA. If its a huge success in France, so what? Even Japan prduces most of its electricity from fossile fuels as do most of the other countries in the world. I don't think even France produces more than 50% of its electric from nuclear power. If we were to start building new nuclear power stations to meet the demand for future hydrogen production, it might be hugely inefficient, but would still be relevant to most Americans. but somehow I don't see that happeneing.

 

[jpd]

MakoMike wrote:
I don't think even France produces more than 50% of its electric from nuclear power. If we were to start building new nuclear power stations to meet the demand for future hydrogen production, it might be hugely inefficient, but would still be relevant to most Americans. but somehow I don't see that happeneing.

NationMaster

 

[MakoMike]

jpd wrote:
MakoMike wrote:
I don't think even France produces more than 50% of its electric from nuclear power. If we were to start building new nuclear power stations to meet the demand for future hydrogen production, it might be hugely inefficient, but would still be relevant to most Americans. but somehow I don't see that happeneing.

NationMaster

what the heck is "terawatt-hours per 1 mil" and how is that relevant to the conversation?

 

[jpd]

MakoMike wrote:

what the heck is "terawatt-hours per 1 mil" and how is that relevant to the conversation?

Are you familiar with mega, giga and tera? No?
France produces 2 and 1/2 times more energy per capita from nuclear energy than the U.S.?

You still missing something? I'm sure they have less SUV's and pickups than us too...

 

[Brenainn]

Conspiracy theory

There is a simple way to extract hydrogen from water and burn it efficiently with very little electrical input. However these saudis and our very own government have gone to great lengths to bury and hide this technology. Can you imagine if the world stopped being dependent on oil overnight

. Oil keeps us dependent on government and it makes lots of people big money. Call me crazy

it wouldnt be the first time

 

[SinkerBouncer]

MakoMike wrote:

It was press release released in the USA and aimed at a USA audience, so I questioned its relevance to the USA. If its a huge success in France, so what? Even Japan prduces most of its electricity from fossile fuels as do most of the other countries in the world. I don't think even France produces more than 50% of its electric from nuclear power. If we were to start building new nuclear power stations to meet the demand for future hydrogen production, it might be hugely inefficient, but would still be relevant to most Americans. but somehow I don't see that happeneing.

The United States is home to 104 nuclear power plants, located in 31 states. Together, these plants generate roughly 20 percent of America?s electricity, or approximately 8.2 percent of its total energy.

The US is the world?s largest producer of nuclear power, but it derives a smaller percentage of its electricity from nuclear technology than many other industrial countries. In 2006, France derived 78.1 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. Other countries producing a high percentage of their power from nuclear energy include Lithuania (72.3 percent), Belgium (54.4 percent), Sweden (48.0 percent, South Korea (38.6 percent), and Switzerland (37.4 percent).

Courtesy DOE/OCRWM

The notion that you find a promising new technology ?irrelevant? underlines the fact that we as a country are dropping the ball on this.
We are running vast deficits to pay for our oil dependence - and a significant percentage of that money goes to regimes that do not have our best interests at heart.
Yet, it is too expensive to spend big money domestically to improve our energy infrastructure?

I don?t think you can overestimate the cost that CO2 emissions adds to everyday life.
Imagine the healthcare benefit to eliminating exhaust fumes from every major Metro area!
It would be an incalculable benefit?.IMHO.

 

[MakoMike]

SinkerBouncer wrote:
MakoMike wrote:

It was press release released in the USA and aimed at a USA audience, so I questioned its relevance to the USA. If its a huge success in France, so what? Even Japan prduces most of its electricity from fossile fuels as do most of the other countries in the world. I don't think even France produces more than 50% of its electric from nuclear power. If we were to start building new nuclear power stations to meet the demand for future hydrogen production, it might be hugely inefficient, but would still be relevant to most Americans. but somehow I don't see that happeneing.

The United States is home to 104 nuclear power plants, located in 31 states. Together, these plants generate roughly 20 percent of America?s electricity, or approximately 8.2 percent of its total energy.

The US is the world?s largest producer of nuclear power, but it derives a smaller percentage of its electricity from nuclear technology than many other industrial countries. In 2006, France derived 78.1 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. Other countries producing a high percentage of their power from nuclear energy include Lithuania (72.3 percent), Belgium (54.4 percent), Sweden (48.0 percent, South Korea (38.6 percent), and Switzerland (37.4 percent).

Courtesy DOE/OCRWM

The notion that you find a promising new technology ?irrelevant? underlines the fact that we as a country are dropping the ball on this.
We are running vast deficits to pay for our oil dependence - and a significant percentage of that money goes to regimes that do not have our best interests at heart.
Yet, it is too expensive to spend big money domestically to improve our energy infrastructure?

I don?t think you can overestimate the cost that CO2 emissions adds to everyday life.
Imagine the healthcare benefit to eliminating exhaust fumes from every major Metro area!
It would be an incalculable benefit?.IMHO.

John, I think you missed my point, which was that unless we are going to spend a lot of money to build nuclear power plants the new technology isn't going to do us any good. If we just generate more electric using fossil fuels we will just become more dependent on foreign oil supplies. I don't see the country building lots more nuclear power plants in the future, do you?

 

[SinkerBouncer]

Mike, your point that it will be almost impossible (if not totally impossible) to build more nuclear power plants in America is well taken. NIMBYs + the Greenies will see to that.

I just can?t see turning our noses up on a technology that offers so many benefits.
Even if it takes 50 years to implement, the change over from fossil fuel to hydrogen fuel for transportation would change every aspect of American life for the better.

We could end our dependence on the whims of OPEC and regain political advantage in the Middle East. Our own domestic oil production would be adequate for our needs.
Hydrogen power would improve or possibly eliminate the trade deficit. The money flowing overseas should be spent here on the necessary capital improvements.
The health benefits and the money saved on medical needs would be huge.

In this country, we concentrate on the short term and ignore the long term.
Our leaders are judged on the here and now so it is political suicide to ask people to sacrifice for change that will improve their grand kid?s lives.
We would rather mortgage the future for a little comfort right now.

 

[MakoMike]

SinkerBouncer wrote:
Mike, your point that it will be almost impossible (if not totally impossible) to build more nuclear power plants in America is well taken. NIMBYs + the Greenies will see to that.

I just can?t see turning our noses up on a technology that offers so many benefits.
Even if it takes 50 years to implement, the change over from fossil fuel to hydrogen fuel for transportation would change every aspect of American life for the better.

We could end our dependence on the whims of OPEC and regain political advantage in the Middle East. Our own domestic oil production would be adequate for our needs.
Hydrogen power would improve or possibly eliminate the trade deficit. The money flowing overseas should be spent here on the necessary capital improvements.
The health benefits and the money saved on medical needs would be huge.

In this country, we concentrate on the short term and ignore the long term.
Our leaders are judged on the here and now so it is political suicide to ask people to sacrifice for change that will improve their grand kid?s lives.
We would rather mortgage the future for a little comfort right now.


John,
I think you missed one critical point. As the technology stands today it takes mor energy to produce a liter of hydrogen than the engergy you can get out of it. IOW we have to produce more elctrical energy to make hydrogen than the hyrogen save us. So unless we can come up with a massive new source of electrical energy we will only wind up buring more fossil fuel to create the electric that makes the hyrogen. That's why I focused on nuclear plants to make the required electric, without nuclear or some other fuel to generate the electric, the conversion to hydrogen is only going to increase our fossil fuel requirments. The only thing that will change is where the fossil fuel is burned.

 

[GradySailfish]

Electrical energy can be cheaply and easily made by clean-coal energy and nukes. I remember reading very recently that two new nuke plants are going to be built.

FYI, About 50% of our electricity is generated by coal, another 25% is generated by nukes, the rest is generated by a mix of natural gas, oil (think only about 3 or 5 %), wind and hydro power etc.

 

[MakoMike]

GradySailfish wrote:


Electrical energy can be cheaply and easily made by clean-coal energy and nukes. I remember reading very recently that two new nuke plants are going to be built.

FYI, About 50% of our electricity is generated by coal, another 25% is generated by nukes, the rest is generated by a mix of natural gas, oil (think only about 3 or 5 %), wind and hydro power etc.



Clean coal is not as clean as it sounds and it is expensive to install the "scrubbers" that will bring the emissions at least up to the standards of the clean air act. Plus you still have the "problems" of CO2 emissions, which congress seems bent on making even more expensive. If coal was as easy as you make it seem we should be building more coal fired plants, we have a 250 year supply of coal. Gas is IMHO interchangeable with oil, since we can use it in almost exactly the same ways. You can run your current car's engine on LNG with just a few simple modifications.

Why don't we do that and subsitute LNG for gas? Oh, I forgot, the NIMBYs won't let us build any new LNG ports either!

 

[likeitreallyis]

MakoMike wrote:
GradySailfish wrote:

Electrical energy can be cheaply and easily made by clean-coal energy and nukes. I remember reading very recently that two new nuke plants are going to be built.

FYI, About 50% of our electricity is generated by coal, another 25% is generated by nukes, the rest is generated by a mix of natural gas, oil (think only about 3 or 5 %), wind and hydro power etc.

Clean coal is not as clean as it sounds and it is expensive to install the "scrubbers" that will bring the emissions at least up to the standards of the clean air act. Plus you still have the "problems" of CO2 emissions, which congress seems bent on making even more expensive. If coal was as easy as you make it seem we should be building more coal fired plants, we have a 250 year supply of coal. Gas is IMHO interchangeable with oil, since we can use it in almost exactly the same ways. You can run your current car's engine on LNG with just a few simple modifications.

Why don't we do that and subsitute LNG for gas? Oh, I forgot, the NIMBYs won't let us build any new LNG ports either!

Mike...

We wouldn't need PORTS for IMPORTED LNG if we tapped our OWN reserves, some of the largest in the world..

Natural gas plants producing clean hydrogen a dream come true..

Big Oil boys will stop that though..

 

[MakoMike]

likeitreallyis wrote:
MakoMike wrote:
GradySailfish wrote:

Electrical energy can be cheaply and easily made by clean-coal energy and nukes. I remember reading very recently that two new nuke plants are going to be built.

FYI, About 50% of our electricity is generated by coal, another 25% is generated by nukes, the rest is generated by a mix of natural gas, oil (think only about 3 or 5 %), wind and hydro power etc.

Clean coal is not as clean as it sounds and it is expensive to install the "scrubbers" that will bring the emissions at least up to the standards of the clean air act. Plus you still have the "problems" of CO2 emissions, which congress seems bent on making even more expensive. If coal was as easy as you make it seem we should be building more coal fired plants, we have a 250 year supply of coal. Gas is IMHO interchangeable with oil, since we can use it in almost exactly the same ways. You can run your current car's engine on LNG with just a few simple modifications.

Why don't we do that and subsitute LNG for gas? Oh, I forgot, the NIMBYs won't let us build any new LNG ports either!

Mike...

We wouldn't need PORTS for IMPORTED LNG if we tapped our OWN reserves, some of the largest in the world..

Natural gas plants producing clean hydrogen a dream come true..

Big Oil boys will stop that though..

Who is being shortsighted now? Sure lets burn up, with gross inefficiency, all that natural gas and then we can wait until we have a natural gas crisis to develop true alternative energy!

Your "dream come true" sounds more like a nightmare since it isn't going to reduce pollution by one iota, all the fossil fuel will be burned anyway (and inefficiently at that) so you just move the source of the polution. Plus do you think all the new pipelines that will have to be built will go through unopposed?

Do you really care what companies develop any future alternative energies? The oil companies have deep pockets and can afford to finance and manage the research needed. Do you want to punish them and cut off your nose to spite your face? Maybe we should just nationalize them as suggested by some Democrats. I feel all warm and fuzzy about having the government manage our fuel supply and health care, look at what a great job they do with DMV!

This post edited by MakoMike 12:41 PM 06/17/2008

 

[Scott1280]

MakoMike wrote:
SinkerBouncer wrote:
Mike, your point that it will be almost impossible (if not totally impossible) to build more nuclear power plants in America is well taken. NIMBYs + the Greenies will see to that.

I just can?t see turning our noses up on a technology that offers so many benefits.
Even if it takes 50 years to implement, the change over from fossil fuel to hydrogen fuel for transportation would change every aspect of American life for the better.

We could end our dependence on the whims of OPEC and regain political advantage in the Middle East. Our own domestic oil production would be adequate for our needs.
Hydrogen power would improve or possibly eliminate the trade deficit. The money flowing overseas should be spent here on the necessary capital improvements.
The health benefits and the money saved on medical needs would be huge.

In this country, we concentrate on the short term and ignore the long term.
Our leaders are judged on the here and now so it is political suicide to ask people to sacrifice for change that will improve their grand kid?s lives.
We would rather mortgage the future for a little comfort right now.


John,
I think you missed one critical point. As the technology stands today it takes mor energy to produce a liter of hydrogen than the engergy you can get out of it. IOW we have to produce more elctrical energy to make hydrogen than the hyrogen save us. So unless we can come up with a massive new source of electrical energy we will only wind up buring more fossil fuel to create the electric that makes the hyrogen. That's why I focused on nuclear plants to make the required electric, without nuclear or some other fuel to generate the electric, the conversion to hydrogen is only going to increase our fossil fuel requirments. The only thing that will change is where the fossil fuel is burned.
Ah, sort of like Ethanol, eh? We see how well that's been going!