backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 56 comment(s) - last by Xenoid.. on Oct 17 at 1:01 AM

Honda's new "Clean Diesel"

FCX Concept Car

FCX Fuel Cell Stack
Honda puts on display next generation clean diesel and fuel cell technology

Diesel engines for consumer vehicles in the United States in recent years have been relegated mainly to heavy-duty pickups along with the Jeep Liberty, Mercedes E-Class and a few VW models. The diesel engine just hasn't taken off here due to the relatively cheap unleaded fuel prices that Americans enjoyed. In Europe, however, diesel engines are found in 50% of new cars.

Honda has unveiled a new diesel drivetrain that it hopes to employ in its US passenger cars by 2009. It also says that the new engine passes U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier II Bin 5 emissions requirements. The key to Honda's diesel cleanliness is due to an innovative new catalytic converter that uses ammonia to convert nitrogen oxide into nitrogen. According to Honda's press release:

The new catalytic converter utilizes a two-layer structure: one layer adsorbs NOx from the exhaust gas and converts a portion of it into ammonia, while the other layer adsorbs the resulting ammonia, and uses it later in a reaction that converts the remaining NOx in the exhaust into nitrogen (N2). Ammonia is a highly effective reagent for reducing NOx into N2 in an oxygen-rich, lean-burn atmosphere. This ability to generate and store ammonia within the catalytic converter has enabled Honda to create a compact, lightweight NOx reduction system for diesel engines. The system also features enhanced NOx reduction performance at 200–300ºC, the main temperature range of diesel engines.

Honda also touted its next generation FCX concept fuel cell vehicle. The new fuel cell stack used in the FCX is 30% lighter and 20% smaller than the previous generation. Despite the reductions in size and weight, power is up by 14kW. The drive motor also saw its power output increase by 15kW and the overall drivetrain is nearly 400 pounds lighter than before.

With its hydrogen fuel cell and onboard lithium ion batteries, the FCX boasts an overall efficiency rating of 60% -- three times that of a conventional internal combustion engine, two times greater than a hybrid vehicle and 10% better than the previous generation FCX. When all is said and done, the new FCX boasts a range of 354 miles.

Honda has long been seen as a “green” company in the United States and its new engine technologies show that the company is poised to maintain that clean image.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
By d33pblue on 9/26/2006 11:00:25 AM , Rating: 4
Deep down I wish America would kick it into high gear on the design side of the automotive industry and work on things like new, fuel efficient technologies. Instead, they keep trying to sell us the same V8, gas guzzling SUVs with old, rehased technology.

I have to wonder whether:
1. The american automotive industry is really that clueless when it comes to designing alternative energy concepts.
2. They are as much in bed with the oil companies as some would like to believe.
3. They are just catering to the American mass market which says "bigger is better" and whose typical consumer wants to constantly compete with the Jones' next door by getting a bigger, and more expensive ride.




By retrospooty on 9/26/2006 11:20:02 AM , Rating: 3
2. They are as much in bed with the oil companies as some would like to believe.

The whole US ecomony including the govt. is in bed with oil companies. A major change won't happen until it makes the oil companies money... Meaning it will happen when THEY are fully invested in the new tech and will profit from it, so thay can continue their stragle hold on us. That will happen on thier schedule, after all, they own the country, not us.


By rushfan2006 on 9/26/2006 11:41:20 AM , Rating: 3
I'd say both your number 2 and even number 3 points hold some validity, but number 1 not at all.

The automakers, like any business in the corporate world especially, worship only one god and its name is "Money".

They create what they create because its what sells, people buy SUV's left and right anymore. Which I find all words of description beyond STUPID to me on why even half the people who buy SUV's really need them. Statistics and survey after survey have shown that MOST owners of SUVs just use them as normal duty vehicles....no off-roading, no towing, etc. Yet so many feel the need to get a gas guzzling 4x4 SuV....little is funnier in everyday life than seeing a 5 ft nothing petite woman with heels and a skirt trying to negotiate climbing into big old SUV; add even more comedy if they have the extra large tires on it.

As far as your number 1 point -- like another person posted about the push rod engine technology...actually we've come a very long way in efficiency engine design. I've owned a camaro with the LS1 in it...fantastic engine. If you don't think over 24 mpg fuel economy isn't impressive for 305 stock hp...then man I wonder if you know the history of cars at all.



By number999 on 9/26/2006 11:51:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Deep down I wish America would kick it into high gear on the design side of the automotive industry and work ...


I wish that too. I've got this GM credit card with all these points and I hate GM cars. They just don't get it. I don't think that they learned anything from the '73 oil crises.

They helped create and market these overly powered vehicles because they have larger margins, then they use that as an excuse not to do anything because thats not what the market wants. Heck they helped create what the market wants. When was the last time you saw a commercial touting efficiency and smart design? Toyota came out one. Only scary thing is hybrid tech being used to just raise horsepower and american companies using that to sell their products ie. Ford and hybrid SUVs. Almost all car companies sell their cars by touting the car's power. What's at the end of every Mazda commercial? Zoom-Zoom.

Foreign based company's exist in countries where the price of gas is high because of government taxes. The gov'ts have decided to be push their economies to be less reliant on imported oil. The companies based there don't have the luxury of sitting on their collective butts. They can justify spending R&D in those areas of efficiency. I don't think American car companies are in bed with the oil companies but I do think they got lazy. American government policy would rather ensure the flow of oil and consumerism, rather than turn inward and get these companies to be competitve in the area of efficiency and rock the status-quo.

Short term thinking at it's worse and a bitter pill for the future.


By number999 on 9/26/2006 12:06:22 PM , Rating: 2
Oh forgot to mention. I remember an article that quoted the CEO's of all the American car companies on their opinions of hybrid cars and energy efficiency. It was like if they didn't think of it, it wasn't worth it.

I have to admit they do pursue technology but the majority of it is used in the end to improve power, not efficiency. Or they research technology that seems forced by gov't rules all the while trying to squirm out of it. Look at the GM EV that was implemented and then literally scrapped in California in favor of hydrogen fuel cell research which has yet to yield any type of rollout comparable to the test rollout of the EV.


By shabodah on 9/26/2006 2:50:53 PM , Rating: 2
GM has done more fuel-cell research than all other companies combined and would most likely have it on the market today if it was not for the politics envolved. Also, the average employee at Toyota and Honda makes less than half of the average employee at Ford or GM. So, you can argue what is better for the consumer is better, but at some point you do have to acknowledge that sometimes the employee is important as well. There's gotta be a happy medium between the two.


By masher2 (blog) on 9/27/2006 9:56:35 AM , Rating: 3
> Foreign based company's exist in countries where the price of gas is high because of government taxes...The companies based there don't have the luxury of sitting on their collective butts...

Ooops, those "foreign companies" are the same ones selling cars here in the US. They make and sell pretty much the same vehicles around the world. They do sell more of the small, underpowered variety in Europe and less of the large SUVs...but they sell still them.

The real issue here is there really isn't any issue. In the absence of stifling government taxes, gas is both cheap and plentiful. Meaning there is little incentive for consumers to purchase those tiny, underpowered vehicles.

The SUV angle is also *heavily* overworked, as the real usage factor in the US isn't the cars we drive...but how far we choose to drive them. I know countless people who drive 100 or even 150 miles daily, just as part of their work commute. While on vacation earlier this month, I met a gentleman whose ONE-WAY commute to work was 110 miles. That's 1100 miles/week...without counting any trips at night or on the weekend.

Interestingly enough, this man was a director of a "green" company, which operates a carbon credit exchange bureau. I found that ironic, especially when I pointed out that my own SUV burns less gas than does the Civic Hybrid he drives to work.


By number999 on 9/27/2006 12:51:51 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
same ones selling cars here in the US


Yes but because of the home market which they dominate, these companies would more likely keep in mind local economic conditions and put r&d in those areas that would have the greatest returns for their areas. That doesn't mean they don't adapt to foreign conditions, look at all the Toyota SUVs, I wonder how many they sell in the Japan.

As for the price of gas. That is totally an artificially construct. Some of those taxes for instance go for road construction/maintenance although I bet it's used as a cash cow for most gov'ts, but shouldn't car users actually pay for things like this? The problem is that it is hard if not impossible to agree on the costs of gasoline consumption and who to hit the costs and who gets the money. It is tempting to divert it which is what happens to most governments.

Also, those "stifling" gov't taxes have social implications. Their governments have decided to be less reliant on imports, to be less vulnerable to foreign influences and to develop their countries their way. This has given them a competitive advantage as energy prices rise. As for gas being plentiful, if all those people consumed gas like the US, it wouldn't be. Wait until India and China modernize and we will see what the price of gas is.

quote:
but how far we choose to drive them

I admit that this is true but the percentage of SUV vehicles is much higher now, especially in the US. SUV's have less traditionally less stringent emission requirements and have worse milage than cars. How many people really require an SUV? Hybrids are not as good on the highway as they are in stop and go traffic.

As for the commute, that is the result on past stupid developement patterns and short sighted laws. We have urban sprawl all over the place. No money for public transportation means everyone needs a car, even in towns. Old rail suburbia has been replaced with car suburbia, nothing near where people actually live. Do people really have a choice in how far they drive? Do they really pay the costs of that extra long distance commute?

I'm not against growth and developement, but in biology what do you call uncontrolled growth and what does it eventually do.


By masher2 (blog) on 9/27/2006 1:36:52 PM , Rating: 3
> " these companies would more likely keep in mind local economic conditions and put r&d in those areas that would have the greatest returns for their areas."

I don't know where you're getting this concept of R&D being "local". If a company develops an innovation, they can use it globally. They don't need to perform separate R&D in each market. The highly-efficient diesel engines developed for Europe can be sold in America....if Americans wanted to buy them. You can't blame automakers for consumer buying habits.

> "Also, those "stifling" gov't taxes have social implications. Their governments have decided to be less reliant on imports...This has given them a competitive advantage as energy prices rise.

If you feel that any European nation with $6+ gasoline has a "competitive advantage" over the USA, you might want to revisit some economics statistics. Even with the massive rises in energy costs the past couple of years, the US economy is still booming.

In any case, your basic premise is incorrect. If the US raised taxes to European levels, our oil consumption would indeed drop. That would act to lower global oil prices...which would lead to a large decrease in DOMESTIC oil production. Nations like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela can sell oil at $5/barrel and still make a profit-- their lifting costs are negligible. But US Gulf of Mexico oil operations are only feasible when prices are high.

> "How many people really require an SUV?"

How many people "require" their own home? It'd sure save energy if we all lived in small apartments...hell, a family of six can easily survive in a two-room apartment.

How many people "require" a computer? Or a television? How many people really need to drive anywhere on the weekends? Forget going to a bar or movie...stay home and save energy. And vacations? Forget about it...those are nothing but waste.

In fact, why not pass a law, and forbid people to use energy on anything that isn't strictly required to keep them alive?

As for your focus on SUVs, you still haven't addressed the main point. It's not what you drive, but how much you drive it. A teenager driving his Civic mindlessly around a parking lot every Friday and Saturday night uses far more gas than my SUV does. Should we ban him doing that also? Hell, why not go back to gas rationing? Give everyone 10 gallons a week...you go over that, you better start walking.


By number999 on 9/29/2006 2:33:54 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
R&D being "local"

The majority of their market and profits initially are local, the R&D spending will be centered around local conditions, not potential foreign markets. While the US produced inefficient cars did they sink a bundle to sell more efficient cars in Europe and Japan? Obviously not. When the 73 oil crises came, who started selling many cars in the US? Japan and Germany. Who's selling hybrids in today's high priced gasoline market? Japan.

Can the tech be transfered, of course, limited to market conditions. People don't buy diesels because of past perceptions and emmission standands which will be easier to met when the US produces cleaner diesel fuel and with new tech developed in those foreign countries.

quote:
European nation with $6+ gasoline has a "competitive advantage" over the USA

It has given their fuel efficient car companies a competitive advantage. There is a huge growth in the demand for fuel efficient vehicles which has caused the US manufacturers to reevaluate their positions. As for the booming US economy, I would like to point out the massive debt of recent years. Also it is a fallacy for you to try to use the total US economny when it was fairly obvious I was referring to the immediate sector that relied on gas like the automotive manufacturing sector.

quote:
US Gulf of Mexico oil operations are only feasible when prices are high

All operations are more profitable when the prices are high, but that doesn't mean production in the Gulf will go off. Many facilities in the Gulf were built when oil was way lower than today and would still be profitable even if the price went down. You're spinning a simplistic economic consequence way out of proportion.

Most production in Saudi Arabia for instance is heavy oil which america doesn't really refine for gasoline. As for the price of production in the gulf I have yet to find price per gallon for production, although I've seen recent unsubstaniated article that oil companies will not invest for production at $30/barrel or over. This is a substantial leeway compared to today's prices. Oil sands production and investment is skyrocketing in today's prices and it's way more expensive than the gulf. You think they would do it if the profit was marginal?

In any case a new equilibrium would be in place and yes it would have foreign oil but much less than today. Would domestic production go down, yes but probably not as much as you're making out.

An interesting point which has come up is the inacessibility of new oil. This makes new oil expensive as well as dangerous to get like Anwar. In a period where cheap oil is disappearing, keeping the status quo on it's use, is not that wise, especially since vehicles as durable goods take a long time to cycle through the market.

quote:
How many people "require"...

Why do you take something simple and take it to extremes. You're pushing something minor and making it draconian to make it seem unrealistic. It's a simple statement of fact, for what people use and how they use them, SUVs are simply overkill. Do you see me saying that according to you because of the added comfort and convience everyone should be driving RV's? I don't go to extremes and take things out of context maybe you should try it. Another point is, go on any road, take a look at the average vehicle occupancy and use. It doesn't take a genius.

quote:
not what you drive, but how much you drive

This is not entirely true. The mix of vehicles, especially in the US is more weighted towards SUVs and larger less efficient vehicles, this does affect things. As for the man who drove a hybrid, what would be the difference be if he drove an SUV, which I'm sure people who have the same commute as he does, do. A civic hybrid gets 48 MPG on the highway, an average SUV, 21. In other words, you do the math.

Also, in another post, you advocate letting sprawl happen. In that scenario you give no choice but increasing how much the person drives.

And you again go too far with your points. You again suggest making a mountain out of a mole hill with your teenager example and your suggestions for solutions, in which you try to ridicule my points by taking them to obviously stupid results. Did I actually say anything about this kid and what to do? If you look, you just ranted and put words in my mouth because I didn't really say anything yet on this subject. As for rationing, prices will do that later as it did this summer, stranding many short sighted SUV buyers.



By number999 on 10/1/2006 11:59:06 AM , Rating: 2
I would like to append some figures.

quote:
production at $30/barrel or over

Cost of production in the Alberta oil sands is around $30-35 dollars US a barrel. Quoted figures for oil sands production is 3 times as much as regular production. From these statements we can guess that production of gulf oil to be in the $20-30 range at it's worst, especially since this oil was exploited before the oil sands and was therefore cheaper.

Although not widely known, many saudi wells are pumping ever increasing amounts of salt water, which means that they are reaching the end of their useful lives. New techniques will extend that life and get more oil out but it doesn't mean that there is endless oil in them, it does mean that it will cost more to get that oil out.


By masher2 (blog) on 9/27/2006 1:48:45 PM , Rating: 2
> "No money for public transportation means everyone needs a car, even in towns"

This little cliche comes up so often, I want to address it separately. A rail or subway transportation system requires vast amounts of resources and energy to build, maintain, and operate. Its only feasible in areas of very high population density...which most of the US doesn't quality. You'll note that areas which DO have that density-- such as NYC, for one, have good public transportation.

Cumulatively, the US has spent over a trillion dollars on public transport in the past few decades. I don't call that "no money". The problem is, we're often trying to put public transport in where it doesn't make sense, out of either sheer corruption (transportation contractors make a bundle) or some misguided belief that it will help either the economy or the environment. In some US areas, its justified...in most, it is not.

And if you consider public transport being a panacea for all our problems, you might want to try living in a city where its the only option. I've lived in several cities which had it, including the one with probably the best system in the entire world-- Moscow. And still, people prefer cars. Ever try to carry a week's worth of groceries for four people through a subway? Then through a station transfer or two? Then to the bus transfer? And then from the bus stop to your home? It ain't fun....and its even less fun when you're bringing home a new TV or piece of furniture.

Do you think its any accident that the nation with the highest private vehicle is also the one with, by far, the largest GDP? Those values are intertwined far more than you think.


By number999 on 9/27/2006 11:02:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A rail or subway transportation system requires vast amounts of resources and energy to build, maintain, and operate

And the roads and the cars that go on them don't.

I admit the payback is better with higher pop densities but the developement patterns that led to the low densities were allowed by law and taxation systems creating north american sprawl.

I don't think public transportation is a panacea but it's an important piece of the cure for modern life. I've had to take the subway and I've taken the commute from Queens to Manhatten and yes it's long and the waiting is inconveniant but have you ever lived through a transit strike in a major city? You think about the convience of the car, how about the inconvenience of the car. I live in one of N. America's worst traffic corridors with constant talk about lost revenues due to traffic and movement of goods. Stupid zoning puts business' and residential areas far away from each other.

As for carrying stuff, well many box stores have truck rentals or there are autoshare programs in many cities where you don't even have to own a car.

I really don't know how much GDP is affected by private vehicle ownership. I do know that the car assessory market is as big as the car market itself but then all the large scale industrial processes have large scale economic impacts. Could it be that the US's large GDP has allowed large a inefficient car fleet to be created, free loading future generations with it's consequences? Think about that.


By masher2 (blog) on 9/27/2006 11:19:28 PM , Rating: 2
> "And the roads and the cars that go on them don't[?]

Not nearly as much, no...except in the rare case of an extremely high population density, which lets your amortize more riders over less distance.

> "I've taken the commute from Queens to Manhatten and yes it's long and the waiting is inconveniant but have you ever lived through a transit strike in a major city?"

You make the opposite point of which you intend. Cars don't go on strike. Subway and bus drivers do. Yet another strike against public transport.

> "the developement patterns that led to the low densities were allowed by law and taxation systems creating north american sprawl."

Freedom allowed what you call "sprawl". With the advent of the industrial age, people moved to the cities...but most realized they really didn't like living in an anthill their entire lives. Freedom-- along with American prosperity-- has allowed many people to escape that, and live the life

You can call it sprawl if you wish, but I find it far superior to the alternative. 300 million people in the US, all crammed into tiny apartments in city centers, with the vast majority of the US totally uninhabited and undeveloped. I'll take the suburbs over that any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

> "As for carrying stuff, well many box stores have truck rentals "

Renting a truck every week is not an economic method of getting the groceries home.

> "Stupid zoning puts business' and residential areas far away from each other. "

There isn't a single home in the nation that is more than a couple miles from commercial property. Zoning does tend to keep heavy industry away from most residential property. That's a good thing...which, had you ever lived next to a large manufacturing plant, I think you'd soon realize.


By number999 on 9/28/2006 9:23:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And the roads and the cars that go on them don't[?]
--Not nearly as much, no

Roads cost millions of dollars per mile to construct. Thats a two lane road. A quoted figure is 6 million a mile in hawaii. Yah that's so much cheaper than public transportation which would displace the car the maybe the need for the road and the gas and the problems of getting that gas.

quote:
Cars don't go on strike. Subway and bus drivers do. Yet another strike against public transp

You miss my point. When they do go on strike maybe 1 or 2 days in 5 years, the roads become impassible to people and for deliveries. Even when public transportation is working, traffic probloms cost a lot of money. Building endlessly more roads in a simplistic effort to alleviate traffic hasn't solved it. Better urban planning combined with public transportion can help the situation.

quote:
Freedom allowed what you call "sprawl"

Why even bring the freedom rhetoric into this. Even as a homeowner you have limited freedoms in what you can do in different areas. Some areas won't even allow personal electrical work in your own home. There's your freedom. Stop the patriotic rhetoric and give a real arguement except the the fact that you like the way things are and don't want to change or you like defending the way things developed. And stop bringing American prosperity into it. The whys and hows of american prosperity are many, which you simplify, and they also have meriad problems, which you dismiss glibly.

Constrast the growth of Atlanta and Portland and land use studies.
http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/Eco/EEch9_ss3.ht...
As I said before, in biology what is uncontrolled growth and what does it usually led to.

quote:
rent a truck every week is not an economic method

Uh I said box stores for a TV and stuff, which a trunk rental is appropriate, especially since you aren't going into the moving business.

I think I mentioned also that that car share programs exist for many cities or does the small average US family size need an SUV for groceries or maybe they just want to raise that shooting obescity level. Or have the stuff delivered. Hey I recently bought a front load washer, guess what, I didn't have a truck and it got to me just fine.

quote:
which, had you ever lived next to a large manufacturing plant

Why not choose something equally obnoxious like a dump to try to make my point stupid or do you think I'm advocating locating factories and things like that next to residential areas like a checkerbox. Give someone else some credit for common sense. I'm talking intelligent design of residential, commercial, light business, office business and yes even industrial use and proper infrastructure to support these areas. And don't tell me this happens. I live in a city where where one suburb is completely residential with one hour-plus delay rush hour traffic in the morning and the evening and all studies point to this getting worse in the future. Nearby commercial property? Maybe a couple of stores dotting the place. That's it. This doesn't affect the quality of life or the economy of the city? Check the difference between Portland and Atlanta from the above link.