Post by: Manedwolf on June 16, 2008, 11:17:43 AM
Quote
Before there was even the Clarity name, Honda hosted a group of journalists at the Twin Ring Motegi track last fall in Japan to try firsthand a variety of vehicles with its latest technology.
It did not come without some mandated penance: a morning seminar outlining Honda's sense of environmental obligation. Honda executives chanted about long-standing initiatives aimed at reducing carbon footprints through technology; no matter how hard they tried, the science know-how required for full comprehension was more than my high-school level. I can say this for certain: More than a few in the room left with their minds numb. (That is, except for a few engineering weenies-turned-auto-writers who, after the seminar was over, scampered outside for a postcoital cigarette. There are always a few in the crowd.)
We were then let loose on the hardware. Among the lot were a former-generation fuel-cell vehicle, a new 2.2-liter 50-state diesel coming to the United States and the FCX Clarity in all its eggplant-hued glory.
Inside the FCX Clarity is an amazing amount of room. The fuel stack, which in previous generations was an enormous intrusion to the cockpit, was at the time of our drive a bit larger than a Halliburton briefcase; it fit between driver and passenger in a low center console. There is ample headroom front and back, though with the FCX Clarity's sloping rear design, getting in and out was a bit tricky for oversized passengers.
Put your foot into the drive-by-wire throttle, and away you go. Limited to 80 mph, these electric motors still hauled like no one's business. The track--an oval, as wide as all get-out--allowed a driver to hit the apexes and move well out to the wall. Later, this would be the site of Danica Patrick's first IndyCar win.
It is the speed-and-sound combo that surprises an uninitiated driver most of all. While we've piloted electric cars before, their ability to translate information to the driver is best described as detached. Not so with the FCX Clarity. Yes, it is quiet, but there is a whine that almost seems part of the DNA--though we haven't quite figured out what hydrogen-power fuel-cell vehicles are supposed to feel like.
Weird. But in a futuristic sort of way.
It did not come without some mandated penance: a morning seminar outlining Honda's sense of environmental obligation. Honda executives chanted about long-standing initiatives aimed at reducing carbon footprints through technology; no matter how hard they tried, the science know-how required for full comprehension was more than my high-school level. I can say this for certain: More than a few in the room left with their minds numb. (That is, except for a few engineering weenies-turned-auto-writers who, after the seminar was over, scampered outside for a postcoital cigarette. There are always a few in the crowd.)
We were then let loose on the hardware. Among the lot were a former-generation fuel-cell vehicle, a new 2.2-liter 50-state diesel coming to the United States and the FCX Clarity in all its eggplant-hued glory.
Inside the FCX Clarity is an amazing amount of room. The fuel stack, which in previous generations was an enormous intrusion to the cockpit, was at the time of our drive a bit larger than a Halliburton briefcase; it fit between driver and passenger in a low center console. There is ample headroom front and back, though with the FCX Clarity's sloping rear design, getting in and out was a bit tricky for oversized passengers.
Put your foot into the drive-by-wire throttle, and away you go. Limited to 80 mph, these electric motors still hauled like no one's business. The track--an oval, as wide as all get-out--allowed a driver to hit the apexes and move well out to the wall. Later, this would be the site of Danica Patrick's first IndyCar win.
It is the speed-and-sound combo that surprises an uninitiated driver most of all. While we've piloted electric cars before, their ability to translate information to the driver is best described as detached. Not so with the FCX Clarity. Yes, it is quiet, but there is a whine that almost seems part of the DNA--though we haven't quite figured out what hydrogen-power fuel-cell vehicles are supposed to feel like.
Weird. But in a futuristic sort of way.
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080616/FREE/570271901/1532/FREE
This I like. This is the fuel gauge. The blue bars are hydrogen, the green bars are charge. That's really easy to understand at one single glance. Excellent user interface design, Honda. Very good.
Post by: HankB on June 16, 2008, 11:34:10 AM
And I don't mean that in a good way.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 16, 2008, 11:39:33 AM
At first glance, the lines are very Prius-like.
And I don't mean that in a good way.
And I don't mean that in a good way.
It's a lot bigger, though.
Also, Honda is doing something else at the same time that nobody had thought of. Big effort to create a hydrogen infrastructure? No problem. Make it at home.
They drew on their knowledge of home LNG generators to make a home hydrogen production/cogeneration/electrical power unit.
Quote
The energy from Hondas Home Energy Station uses your homes compressed natural gas utility to produce your vehicle fuel, your home heating and electrical power. This is a potentially huge concept toward the clean, renewable and domestically independent energy our country desperately needs.
Cool. Energy independence by using domestic natural gas for fueling AND electricity generation on a per-home level? Go, freaking GO, Honda! That's just awesome.
Who knows, maybe Honda will be able to help us kick the foreign dependence issue.
Post by: mtnbkr on June 16, 2008, 11:44:29 AM
Where's the info about the hydrogen generation process?
Chris
Post by: Sergeant Bob on June 16, 2008, 11:47:49 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on June 16, 2008, 11:48:05 AM
how many miles can you go before you have to refuel/recharge it?
Where's the info about the hydrogen generation process?
Chris
Where's the info about the hydrogen generation process?
Chris
It's all on Honda's own page.
http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/drive-fcx-clarity.aspx
City/Highway/Combined 77 / 67 / 72
Driving Range 280
The latter is likely why it's still going to be a limited lease. They want to bump that number to the 500's, I'd think.
As for the home energy generation unit, they're on the Model IV now, shrinking it and reducing its efficiency each time. It appears to be in constant use at their facility, as it's been shown fueling one of these cars in promo videos.
Based on the small size of the unit, I would expect it's a partial oxidation reaction, and the waste heat is used for cogeneration.
Quote
In partial oxidation, the methane and other hydrocarbons in natural gas are reacted with a limited amount of oxygen (typically, from air) that is not enough to completely oxidize the hydrocarbons to carbon dioxide and water. With less than the stoichiometric amount of oxygen available for the reaction, the reaction products contain primarily hydrogen and carbon monoxide (and nitrogen, if the reaction is carried out with air rather than pure oxygen), and a relatively small amount of carbon dioxide and other compounds. Subsequently, in a water-gas shift reaction, the carbon monoxide reacts with water to form carbon dioxide and more hydrogen.
Partial oxidation is an exothermic process - it gives off heat. It is, typically, a much faster process than steam reforming and requires a smaller reactor vessel.
Partial oxidation is an exothermic process - it gives off heat. It is, typically, a much faster process than steam reforming and requires a smaller reactor vessel.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on June 16, 2008, 11:51:31 AM
At first glance, the lines are very Prius-like.
And I don't mean that in a good way.
And I don't mean that in a good way.
Translation: It's waaayyyy more aerodynamically efficient than any bigazz SUV.
Post by: mtnbkr on June 16, 2008, 11:58:20 AM
Range is too short for me personally to consider as anything other than a local trip vehicle. I put upwards of 450 miles per week on my car (wife does another 200+ on her vehicle). If my personal hydrogen station is the only one around, I can only go as far as half a tank (less actually to maintain a safety buffer). Day to day driving is no problem, but I couldn't take it on a trip to visit family, any of my family until the max range hits the high 500s or refueling opportunities increase.
I'm also not crazy about using petro products to create the fuel. Seems like we're just shuffling things around. However, nothing says you can't create the hydrogen using other techniques, this is just the easiest to implement today.
Bears watching...
Chris
Post by: Manedwolf on June 16, 2008, 12:00:44 PM
I'm also not crazy about using petro products to create the fuel. Seems like we're just shuffling things around. However, nothing says you can't create the hydrogen using other techniques, this is just the easiest to implement today.
The difference is that we have a LOT of natural gas in the US and would not need to import it if we drilled everywhere. That, and there's hundreds of years worth of methane hydrates on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on June 16, 2008, 12:04:50 PM
Quote
I'm also not crazy about using petro products to create the fuel. Seems like we're just shuffling things around.
That's what I was thinking. How much energy does it take and how much pollution is made in the production of hydrogen?
Post by: Manedwolf on June 16, 2008, 12:06:15 PM
Quote
I'm also not crazy about using petro products to create the fuel. Seems like we're just shuffling things around.
That's what I was thinking. How much energy does it take and how much pollution is made in the production of hydrogen?
It takes natural gas, and that doesn't produce much CO. Or it can be made via electrolysis of seawater. In which case, we build more reactors. Zero emission.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on June 16, 2008, 12:18:22 PM
Post by: Brad Johnson on June 16, 2008, 12:29:29 PM
Brad
Post by: Racehorse on June 16, 2008, 12:36:59 PM
As for the home energy generation unit, they're on the Model IV now, shrinking it and reducing its efficiency each time. It appears to be in constant use at their facility, as it's been shown fueling one of these cars in promo videos.
Yes, it's the goal of every engineer--reducing efficiency.
I know what you meant, though.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on June 16, 2008, 01:26:57 PM
I'm also not crazy about using petro products to create the fuel. Seems like we're just shuffling things around. However, nothing says you can't create the hydrogen using other techniques, this is just the easiest to implement today.
The difference is that we have a LOT of natural gas in the US and would not need to import it if we drilled everywhere. That, and there's hundreds of years worth of methane hydrates on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico.
And there would be a lot more NG available if we switched to nuke power. As for the methane hydrates, there is a research well and station on Ice Road Truckers.
Post by: Tallpine on June 16, 2008, 02:04:48 PM
Post by: 41magsnub on June 16, 2008, 02:05:36 PM
Next, they need to make a fuel cell powered 4 wheel drive pickup that can pull a gooseneck horse trailer
The problem is the trailer will be completely full of fuel cells.
Post by: Nitrogen on June 16, 2008, 03:17:29 PM
I'm sure we'll figure this stuff out as things go. Look at hybrids. Granted, a dead end, lame, technology, but just in the 5 years or so we've been making them, the've gotten better and better. Better batteries, plug-in kits, etc.
We used to think we couldn't go faster than the speed of sound, and we figured that out. I'm sure we can figure out how to get ~300 miles on an "average sized" tank of hydrogen, too.
Post by: anygunanywhere on June 16, 2008, 03:40:26 PM
Producing one cubic foot of hydrogen from seawater requires approximately the same energy, though electric power is typically expressed in watts. 324 btu = approx 94 watt/hr.
If you burn hydrogen you produce only 324 btu for each cubic foot burned. High school chemistry told us that you can not create energy, only change form. Using hydrogen for fuel requires large amounts of hydrogen since the btu release is small. One horsepower/hour = 2544 btu.
When producing hydrogen from water unless your source of electricity is from non-fossil fuel source you create CO2 emissions. Nuclear power (fission) pollutes because producing fission reactor fuel produces enormous quantities of CO2.
THe only way to produce electricity and hydrogen CO2 free on a grand scale is with fusion reactors, and that ain't happening anytime soon.
Post by: Gewehr98 on June 16, 2008, 05:59:39 PM
http://www.virent.com/
Post by: wmenorr67 on June 16, 2008, 09:08:13 PM
Too bad it looks like a pregnant roller skate.
Brad
Brad
No that would have been a Pacer.
Post by: mfree on June 17, 2008, 03:04:06 AM
I'd have one, just scrap the hydrogen and give me the 2.2CDI drivetrain they sell in Europe
Post by: Firethorn on June 17, 2008, 03:23:36 AM
Nuclear power (fission) pollutes because producing fission reactor fuel produces enormous quantities of CO2.
While producing a pound of uranium isn't a clean process by default, I'll admit, isn't the CO2 insignficant once you figure the amount of power you're going to produce from said fuel?
It would help if we had breeder reactors, recycled waste, or had more reactors that take unenriched uranium
By the same token Wind isn't CO2 free either - you have the CO2 from producing the concrete pad to put the tower in, the CO2 from producing the tower, construction vehicles and all that.
Energy Balances and CO2 Implications - Scroll down to see the table of CO2 outputs by power type.
I'll also note that we can, if we so choose, drop that even more for nuclear power. For example, suppose that rather than using coal power for various refining tasks we went ahead and used nuclear power instead?
As for the car, it's neat, but my concern is cost - are the fuel cells approaching anything near 'affordable'? Last I'd heard, NG fuel cells weren't quite as efficient, but the energy gain from going to CNG as you don't need the reformer and storage is much simpler outweighed the loss of efficiency. Of course, in this case the waste heat is being put to good use.
Then again, I could put the CNG directly into a car, and especially during the summertime use the sun to heat my water.
edit - lost part of a sentence in there ?:
Post by: xavier fremboe on June 17, 2008, 03:24:46 AM
Post by: Jamisjockey on June 17, 2008, 03:41:44 AM
Next, they need to make a fuel cell powered 4 wheel drive pickup that can pull a gooseneck horse trailer
Or a 23' boat How much smug does it produce?
Lots of smug! If you think pious owners are smug....wait till this thing hits the market....
Post by: taurusowner on June 17, 2008, 04:06:59 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on June 17, 2008, 04:12:39 AM
How much does the home fuel station cost to fill your car? If you burn X amount of gas to power your car and then switch over to burning X amount of something else to create electricity to power your car, what's changed? Especially if you lose some energy in the extra medium transfers. Does increased cost of electricity or natural gas to your home bill match or exceed gasoline costs? Now what about if much of the country switches over to this and natural gas demand increases 2000+% ?
Because we have centuries of natural gas in the US. We only import like 3% of what we use. It can also be made with high efficiency by everything from landfills to bioreactors digesting organic waste, like sewage. That's the difference.
Post by: K Frame on June 17, 2008, 05:05:45 AM
OIL! WE SHOULD BURN OIL! WE SHOULD COOK WITH OIL! WE SHOULD BATHE IN OIL! WE SHOULD DRINK OIL!
STOP ALL RESEARCH INTO GODLESS COMMUNIST FORMS OF DEVIL ENERGY!
SOLAR? SATAN!
WIND? SATAN!
COAL? LESSER DEMON!
NUCLEAR? DOUBLE SATAN!
BIOFUEL? HILLARY CLINTON!
Post by: Firethorn on June 17, 2008, 05:35:02 AM
How much does the home fuel station cost to fill your car? If you burn X amount of gas to power your car and then switch over to burning X amount of something else to create electricity to power your car, what's changed? Especially if you lose some energy in the extra medium transfers. Does increased cost of electricity or natural gas to your home bill match or exceed gasoline costs? Now what about if much of the country switches over to this and natural gas demand increases 2000+% ?
Well, one problem I can see if it becomes popular is that the government would have to start taxing it. Right now it gets a free ride on the 40 or so cents per gallon taxes imposed by the government on gasoline/diesel.
Post by: taurusowner on June 17, 2008, 05:40:09 AM
How much does the home fuel station cost to fill your car? If you burn X amount of gas to power your car and then switch over to burning X amount of something else to create electricity to power your car, what's changed? Especially if you lose some energy in the extra medium transfers. Does increased cost of electricity or natural gas to your home bill match or exceed gasoline costs? Now what about if much of the country switches over to this and natural gas demand increases 2000+% ?
Because we have centuries of natural gas in the US. We only import like 3% of what we use. It can also be made with high efficiency by everything from landfills to bioreactors digesting organic waste, like sewage. That's the difference.
It doesn't really matter how much we have, someone still has to pull it out of the ground, make it usable, store it and transport it. That all costs money. Increased demand = increased price. Will the increased price still be worth the chanegover?
Post by: atomd on June 17, 2008, 05:56:34 AM
It's interesting. Do you think these would have sold well 5 years ago? 10?
Post by: Firethorn on June 17, 2008, 06:08:32 AM
It's interesting. Do you think these would have sold well 5 years ago? 10?
Not at the price premium the extra/alternative parts impose. Now with gas approaching $5/gallon, the equations change.
Of course, I have to wonder why Europe isn't buying our entire stock of hybrids and such, given their extra cost for gasoline.
Post by: atomd on June 17, 2008, 07:15:59 AM
Quote
Not at the price premium the extra/alternative parts impose. Now with gas approaching $5/gallon, the equations change.
The Prius seems to be doing ok and that isn't really saving anyone any money. They have been making it for over 10 years now so someone must have been buying them. Some Prius owners (in city driving) are claiming they are only getting around 35mpg. You can buy a car that gets around 30mpg for about $10,000 less.
Even if the Prius got 50mpg @ $4/gal and you drove it more miles per year, it still wouldn't be a good value (as far as gas savings goes)....but people still buy them for other reasons. To me they don't seem that much nicer or of much better quality than say...a Corolla or Matrix (and there's no claim of them lasting any longer than a Corolla or Matrix either). I didn't factor in the interest some people are paying on that extra $10,000...or having to replace the battery around 100k miles like I've heard about.
From a spending angle, it seems we are just financing our gas purchases instead of paying as we go. Someday it will make sense but I don't see that happening in the next few years anyways. Time will tell.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 17, 2008, 07:58:57 AM
To me they don't seem that much nicer or of much better quality than say...a Corolla or Matrix (and there's no claim of them lasting any longer than a Corolla or Matrix either)
That looks like a primary difference in this. There's closeup pictures of the dash out there. This isn't a fuel-cell Civic. It's a fuel-cell Accord or Acura TL in interior design and materials quality, at least in appearance. Big difference.
Post by: Firethorn on June 17, 2008, 09:32:40 AM
The Prius seems to be doing ok and that isn't really saving anyone any money. They have been making it for over 10 years now so someone must have been buying them. Some Prius owners (in city driving) are claiming they are only getting around 35mpg. You can buy a car that gets around 30mpg for about $10,000 less.
Well, you always have the smug factor, but some people want the extra weight(IE features) and accelleration that a hybrid can offer while still getting good gas mileage.
The price difference between a Honda Civic and the hybrid equivalent, for example, is about $2-3k.
I'm going to go with an almost exclusive city driver. Let's say our test subject is an independent inner city taxi driver, salesman or something. Lotsa mileage, all city.
NonHybrid: 25. Hybrid: 40. Gas: $5/gallon. Hybrid: $3k extra
Cost per mile: $.20 vs $.13
Break even point: 40k miles. Less than 3 years for the 'Average' driver who goes 15k miles a year. Doable. If we figure gas is going to float at $4 for the next few years, it'd be 50k miles, a little over 3 years.
It doesn't much sense for the highway driver - over seven years with gas at $5. Of course, if we figure he drives twice as many miles, that'd drop it to 3.6 years.
On the Toyota side - the Prius mentioned is cheaper than the civic hybrid and gets better gas mileage, and has more passanger volume and cargo room. The Matrix seems to be a pretty close competitor - but is 6.5k cheaper. Still, the Prius gets better city mileage - it's break even point would be 4.5 years at 68k miles.
Disclaimer: I got my information off of Honda and Toyota's sites using published EPA mileage. I make no claim as to the suitability of any given vehicle for any given task, or the comparability between them. As the EPA says, mileage varies depending on driving patterns.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on June 17, 2008, 09:33:22 AM
Quote
Even if the Prius got 50mpg @ $4/gal and you drove it more miles per year, it still wouldn't be a good value (as far as gas savings goes)....but people still buy them for other reasons.
That's right. Owning a Prius isn't all about mileage. More important is the self assured, smug high you get showing everyone else you're environmentally responsible.
I thought I'd say it first
Post by: Brad Johnson on June 17, 2008, 09:49:20 AM
Quote
it's break even point would be 4.5 years at 68k miles.
You aren't figuring in the cost of the replacement battery pack. They are supposed to last 150-200k, but seem to be needing replacement in the real world at around 100k. Figure Add $5000-$7000.
Add that cost to total ownership (treat it as fuel). The numbers shift significantly.
Brad
Post by: Firethorn on June 17, 2008, 11:03:12 AM
Add that cost to total ownership (treat it as fuel). The numbers shift significantly.
Do you have any figures on the 100k? Oh, and the latest I've seen the battery packs have dropped to a more reasonable $2-3k.
The critical point to remember is that the core charge is going to be quite high for the battery - it's quite recyclable so the company wants it back. If yours is reasonably intact they'll pay you for it.
Besides, even if the battery needs replacement at 100k, it's still located a ways beyond the break even point.