Honda released info and photos of FCX

Ok, time for round 2 of "How clean is Hydrogen?". For those who missed round 1, we calculated the CO2 emissions created making Hydrogen for the BMW hydrogen 7 series. We found that while it gets 17mpg on gasoline, using the top 3 most popular ways of making hydrogen it gets the CO2 emissions equivalent of 4.6 to 14.9 mpg. You can see that one here:

http://priuschat.com/index.php?s=&show...st&p=530499

So lets see how the FCX fares.

From the minimal data I can find it looks like the car uses 5kg of Hydrogen to travel up to 270 miles. Using the same numbers from the previous post lets see what it takes to make 5kg of Hydrogen.

1. Electrolysis: 3rd most common source of hydrogen in US today, and the one most people think of. After all we all know Hydrogen cars run on nothing but water right? It takes ~50kWh of electricity to electrolyze 1kg of Hydrogen, so 5kg would require ~250kWh. Using the current US average power mix, generating 250kWh would put 335 lbs of CO2 into the air. Burning a gallon of gas puts out 20 lbs of CO2, so this is equivalent to 16.75 gallons of gas. Traveling 270 miles on 16.75 gallons would come out to 16.1 MPG.

2. Coal Gassification: 2nd most common source of Hydrogen in the US. Big domestic supply, but somehow coal power fuel cells don't seem to have quite the green ring to them that water based do. Each pound of Hydrogen generated in this manner releases ~24 lbs of CO2 into the air. For 5kg, this equals 264.6 lbs of CO2. This is equivilent to burning 13.23 gallons of gasoline. Traveling 270 miles on 13.23 gallons is 20.4 MPG.

3. Steam Reformation of Methane/Natural Gas: Most common method making Hydrogen in the US. Unfortunately US consumption of Natural Gas is already outpacing domestic production, and we are importing Natural Gas from overseas. Making a pound of Hydrogen in this manner puts 9.42 pounds of CO2 into the air. For 5kG, this would be 103.9 pounds of CO2. This is equivalent to 5.2 gallons of gasoline. Traveling 270 on 5.2 gallons would be 51.9 MPG.

16.1 to 51.9 MPG depending on where you fill up doesn't really sound that revolutionary. For this we're going to spend billions installing a new Hydrogen infrastructure? Considering EVs were 2-3 times more efficient almost 10 years ago I can't say I'm really that impressed.

Rob

 

Yep, the Civic hybrid shares several layout and generic interior design cues evident in the Clarity. Quasi "heads-up" digital speedometer, driver focused instrumentation with single dial "tachometer" even the parts (steering wheel and buttons among others, are identical if not the same)


here's the actual release web site:
http://www.fcx.honda.com


Cheers;

MSantos

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob Smith @ Nov 14 2007, 09:09 PM) [snapback]539751[/snapback]</div>

Maybe you missed this news story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071112/sc_afp/ussciencefuel

I think by the time Hydrogen cars really hit the market, hydrogen obtaining processes like the one in the above article will be the norm.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Chrome @ Nov 14 2007, 10:50 PM) [snapback]539783[/snapback]</div>

As you may be aware, I'm a consulting engineer (Industrial process control). Just like the zero point energy claims, I always like to demand technical details, and the applicability to industrial scale output. An idea that works fine in the lab setting or small "pilot plant" scale, will usually not scale well to industrial output

Call me picky, but I don't believe in faith, or magic.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jayman @ Nov 15 2007, 10:57 AM) [snapback]539968[/snapback]</div>

I'm aware of the lab to large scale production hurdles, but this is a good sign nonetheless.

 

We don't import natural gas from "overseas". We import from Canada, but that is about it. They have been trying to build LNG terminals, but will probably never get any approved.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Winston @ Nov 15 2007, 02:09 PM) [snapback]540216[/snapback]</div>

At this rate, we can import gas from whichever nations that currently still have ice... since there will be a lot of methane coming from under the ice.

:lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Winston @ Nov 15 2007, 05:09 PM) [snapback]540216[/snapback]</div>

Actually, about 1% of current US natural gas imports are in the form of LNG tankers.

Thank you for raising a point I neglected: LNG tanker terminals are on the drawing board to dramatically increase the import of LNG into the US. Although the following link is a lawyer one, it does present reasonably accurate data

http://timrileylaw.com/LNG.htm

The following is more factual

http://www.iags.org/n0121041.htm

The US government has enacted legislation that limits liability to the LNG tanker companies in the event of an "incident"

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/3/prweb219287.php

Sandia Labs did extensive computer simulation of what would happen if a catastrophic LNG tanker failure were to occur. The simulation did not please the LNG industry

http://www.prod.sandia.gov/cgi-bin/techlib...2005/057339.pdf

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Chrome @ Nov 14 2007, 10:50 PM) [snapback]539783[/snapback]</div>

Nope, I'm well aware thanks Given that 0% of US Hydrogen is currently produced this way, its pretty irrelevant for now.

My point is, PHEVs and BEVs require no major technology break-throughs, no major infrastructural changes, are easily as efficient or more efficient than current (and probably future) FCVs, are already cleaner than current hydrogen technologies, and could be on the market within a year or two at a competitive price. The only thing that stands in the way is for someone to start high volume production to get the costs in line. Over time we could then clean up the electrical infrastructure (also using existing technology) and make our cars (and everything else) even cleaner.

Conversely, we are planning to wait 10-20 years or more for fuel cells to become economically feasible, invent a new clean way of making hydrogen on a large scale, put 10s-100s of billions into a new fuel infrastructure and end up with something that _might_ be as clean/efficient as a late 90s BEV.

Imagine if we put that much money and effort into decent high speed rail, public transit, and local (~200 mi) electric vehicles.

Rob

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Winston @ Nov 15 2007, 05:09 PM) [snapback]540216[/snapback]</div>

Thanks for the correction. I had heard somewhere we were importing a fair amount from Russia, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

rob

 

Speaking of CNG, does anyone know (or know if there is a way of finding out) if there are still CA HOV decals available for newly purchased CNG vehicles?

 

Honda has started advertising this car on TV already. Why advertise it on the East Coast if people in only three cities in Southern California will be able to lease one?

Almost as bad as the Volt being advertised already.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Chrome @ Nov 16 2007, 08:49 AM) [snapback]540590[/snapback]</div>

At least this one has video footage of the car being driven faster than 2mph. :lol:

 

This article talks about solarpowered refueling stations

'Honda intends for its FCX II to fuel up by using a special infrastructure consisting of gas stations powered by solar panels'

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4263794a30.html

 

There are basically three broad categories of energy sources for hydrogen:

1. Fossil fuels. Burn fossil fuel, generate electricity, produce hydrogen, with all the associated efficiency losses; or re-form natural gas, also with efficiency losses. In all cases the carbon from the fossil fuel goes into the atmosphere, or else must be sequestered at astronomical cost in dollars and energy, and with no guarantees that the sequestration will hold. It's more efficient to just burn the fossil fuel.

2. Direct or indirect solar energy: photovoltaics, wind, solar concentration for steam, tidal, etc. It's more efficient to use the electricity directly, rather than converting it to hydrogen, though there will be some limited applications where hydrogen is more suitable than electricity.

3. Nuclear. But to produce enough energy through nuclear to meet our transportation needs would probably require breeder reactors, and the processing of the fuel is so like the production of weapons-grade fissile materials that proliferating this technology would have tremendous impacts on nuclear weapons proliferation. In addition, the radioactive waste must be sequestered longer than the human race has had its modern physiological form. Human civilization goes back some 5 or 6 thousand years, and these materials are deadly for hundreds of thousands of years.

Nuclear has an advantage over fossil fuels in that it does not add carbon to the environment, and we are fast transforming Earth's climate into one more suitable for dinosaurs than humans. But the risks are unacceptable in my opinion.

On average, 240 watts of solar energy fall on every square meter of the Earth's surface 24 hours a day. Of course, that's an average because some places get more than others, and the sun only shines in the daytime. Still, this energy is abundant. All we gotta do is harvest it. (And when we do, a BEV is a more efficient way to use it than an FCV.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MSantos @ Nov 14 2007, 10:09 PM) [snapback]539752[/snapback]</div>

I swear, i feel like some people are hating just because its not a Prius.

Generic design cues? Sorry, but there is nothing generic about that interior. In fact, its getting almost universal praise. So they share a similar design philosophy. Most car companies do. Sharing design cues is just developing brand identity.

If you really want to nitpick, I'm sure you're likely to find even more parts-bin items in the prius (stalks, door handles, ignition, air vents, power window switches, etc).

But the exterior is another story. Save for the corporate grille, this car looks like it could have been the next gen prius.

As for the power train, well, yeah its unproven in real life conditions, and there's evidence to suggest both good and bad about it, which is why Honda is likely restricting its sales and testing it out. The prius was met with similar skepticism, which still lingers today.

I am personally going to reserve judgement until its actually out and tested. But it does looks promising, and if it continues to, I'll be the first in line to buy one when it goes nation wide.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(neemer5 @ Nov 17 2007, 10:39 PM) [snapback]541112[/snapback]</div>

In your dreams neemer5 !!!! You'll have to get inline, way back there behind me.


Cheers;

MSantos

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(neemer5 @ Nov 17 2007, 08:39 PM) [snapback]541112[/snapback]</div>

Even if there's no place within a thousand miles of you to get the hydrogen to put into it?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 18 2007, 07:58 PM) [snapback]541325[/snapback]</div>

I somehow doubt that they'd go nationwide if the nation wasn't equipped to fill it up.

But no matter, I'll have to get in the cue first, right Msantos?