backtop


Print 78 comment(s) - last by Xietsu.. on Nov 22 at 12:16 PM


Honda FCX Clarity  (Source: Honda)

  (Source: Honda)

  (Source: Honda)
Leases begin in summer 2008 at $600 per month

The gasoline-electric hybrid news has come in at a furious pace at DailyTech over the past few weeks. Honda announced its intention to bring a small, sporty hybrid to market; Fisker announced its gorgeous hybrid sports sedan and GM yesterday showed off new hybrid full-size pickups and full-size SUVs.

Honda has a new fuel efficient vehicle of its own to tout and the word "hybrid" is nowhere to be found. The company finally pulled the wraps off the production version of its FCX fuel cell prototype -- now called the FCX Clarity.

Exterior design-wise, the FCX Clarity closely mimics the earlier prototype, but now features government-spec bumpers front and back and smaller wheels. Inside, the FCX Clarity uses a gauge cluster and heads-up display similar in fashion to the current Honda Civic. Otherwise, the interior looks rather normal if you can get past the overabundance of silver-painted plastic.

When it comes to the powertrain, the FCX Clarity uses a 100 kW V Flow fuel cell stack which is 65 percent smaller than the one used on the first generation FCX. Other powertrain components include a 171-liter, 5,000-psi hydrogen fuel tank, a lithium-ion battery pack and a 95 kW (127 HP) electric motor.

According to Honda, the FCX Clarity is good for an equivalent of 68 MPG and has a range of 270 miles. Also, since the FCX Clarity is a fuel cell-powered vehicle, there are no CO2 emissions -- the vehicle's only emission is water.

"The FCX Clarity is a shining symbol of the progress we've made with fuel cell vehicles and of our belief in the promise of this technology," said American Honda president and CEO Tetsuo Iwamura. "Step by step, with continuous effort, commitment and focus, we are working to overcome obstacles to the mass-market potential of zero-emissions hydrogen fuel cell automobiles."

The FCX Clarity will see limited service in the Southern California area beginning in summer 2008. Customers will sign up for a three-year lease at price of roughly $600 per month. Honda also notes that the FCX Clarity qualifies for a $12,000 IRS tax credit.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

First Post
By Comdrpopnfresh on 11/15/2007 10:07:37 AM , Rating: -1
Hydrogen Vehicles only propagate the further use of Coal for power generation. Coal releases radiation, Nitrogen compounds, sulfur compounds, and C02 when burned. No one seems to care since the US has a large domestic source of it. Where will this car be used? Maybe Iceland...
How about some bluetec diesel hybrids?




RE: First Post
By etriky on 11/15/2007 10:29:35 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe right now that is true. The future will most likely be different.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=9278


RE: First Post
By jak3676 on 11/15/2007 10:46:06 AM , Rating: 3
Yes this does have some reliance on the energy grid, but how many times do we have to show that the US currently generates electricity much more efficantly than any internal combustion engine. It's not even close. Even if all your electricity came from only old, obsolete coal power plants, you would still be an order of magnitude cleaner, more efficient and cheaper than using the most efficient ICE.

ICE's (even the very best) are really inefficient. It's mostly a matter of scale. Power plants get huge benifits from economy of scale.


RE: First Post
By masher2 (blog) on 11/15/2007 10:50:45 AM , Rating: 4
> "How about some bluetec diesel hybrids? "

Diesels can be up to 35% more efficient than a gas engine. That means 35% less emissions...but they're still emitting. Plus, the efficiency means money saved on fuel. Some people will use that savings to drive further, others will use it to buy larger vehicles. That'll eat up a certain percentage of the savings. And our population is still growing, which means more people driving each year.

The upshot is that even if everyone in the nation switched to a diesel hybrid, in 2-3 decades our emissions would be right back where they started.

Hydrogen is a wholly different beast. Couple it with nuclear power, and you have a true zero-emission source.


RE: First Post
By jak3676 on 11/15/2007 12:52:31 PM , Rating: 4
Just be careful that you don't let perfection come in the way of progress. Fuel cells can indeed be used as a great battery, but I don't think they are the only answer either.

If we can get some percentage of the population to switch to an efficient diesel, and others to switch to a strong hybrid (I don't know of any diesel hybrids available in production now - hopefully model year 2009 though) that will only help.

If we can use these technologies that consumers are already familiar and comfortable with to cut energy consumption in the short term, that's great. That will give us some more time to build the infrastructure necessary to go to a more efficient all electric energy market.

The US does seam stuck in this mindset that there is some great technology just around the corner that will solve all our energy needs and we don’t need to make any changes until then. Very few seem to realize that it's not that simple.

Nuclear certainly needs to be a big part of our future, but there will still be minor contributions from solar, wind and hydroelectric. No matter how much some people may want it; coal power and oil will not be going away anytime soon. We should indeed continue to strive to make them more efficient. The current ethanol and bio-diesel programs are very poorly managed at a national level with incentives and hand outs only encouraging wasteful development. That doesn't mean that they are entirely worthless either, they just need to be refocused as part of an overall national (or global) policy. There may be some additional supply sources that come online soon too - again, they more suppliers the better, but don't look for any single answers to a complex problem. Even with all the various energy supplies taken together, they will not solve the equation on a whole. They only address supply.

We also need to develop better national (or global) strategies for cutting demand through increased efficiency. High energy prices will spur some consumers to make more efficient decisions, but we have whole industries and lobbying groups out there that are pushing to keep the status quo. The government ends up subsidizing poor decisions and inefficiency while consumers often look at short term price instead of long term costs. There is some balancing that needs to be done here. In the US we pride ourselves on personal freedoms. We can protect those even when people choose to waste energy, but that doesn't mean that we can't mandate certain levels of national efficiency. We don't need to ban Hummers to raise the national MPG averages and we don’t need to ban incandescent light bulbs to cut electricity usage. We should be smart enough to create various taxes/credits and pricing schemes that correctly identify the costs to consumers and nudge the country in the right direction. Some of this is as simple as allowing tax breaks for putting additional insulation your attic, like we’ve done before. Some of this may require some new thinking.

Made up numbers here, but stay with me. As it is now, simple incandescent light bulbs probably cost less than a buck, and let’s say they use 20 dollars in electricity for some set period of time. A compact fluorescent bulb costs about $4 and uses less than $10 in electricity for that same time. A solid state bulb (LED) may cost $7 and use $6 in energy. There are lots of people that will look only at the up front cost and purchase the old standard, cheap light bulb. What would happen if when you went to the store to buy a light bulb, you had to purchase some set amount of electricity with it, but that cost of the electricity was immediately credited toward your electricity bill? People would then see that they had to pay $21 for a standard incandescent light bulb, $14 for a compact fluorescent and $13 for a LED bulb. People would still be free to choose whatever they wanted and their costs wouldn’t change. There are still plenty of cases where the more efficient bulbs aren’t a simple drop in replacement, and they aren’t always the most appealing temperature (color) of light, but at least consumers would see a more correct cost up front.

It may not be as simple as my light bulb example above, but you could combine the energy cost into just about any item from consumer electronics to automobiles or industrial machinery. Don’t get caught up in the details, I’m not trying to advocate any specific plan, just someway to show the energy cost in a more compelling manner. Hanging a yellow tag on a water heater that shows how much it will cost you run for a year is a nice step, or listing EPA approved MPG numbers are nice, but we can easily do more to show people the benefits of conserving energy without limiting personal choice.

It seems like there aren't any groups out there that are trying to work both sides of the issue. On one side you have the oil and energy companies that only benefit from high demand and high prices. They will all they can to increase supply so long as it doesn’t cut into the price they can charge. On the flip side you end up with Greenpeace and similar organizations that don't believe that humans should consume any energy at all. Somewhere in the middle you have the government that hands out money to whichever organization lobbies the hardest and in the end consumers end up with a lot of poor choices and limited innovation.

Sorry, had to get that off my chest


RE: First Post
By Lord 666 on 11/15/2007 1:21:45 PM , Rating: 2
So you are saying the modern diesel hybrid is an anwer to the question of "how can we hit 35mpg by 2035" that can be rolled out now giving us 2 to 3 decades of reduced fuel consumption? The big Three and Toyota to say it can't be done is BS and you just proved it.

The money we save by driving our 2006 Jetta TDI vs the 2005 Honda CR-V is around $150 per month. This money is put into our child's saving's account. The cost savings between petrol and diesels are significant and real.


RE: First Post
By masher2 (blog) on 11/15/2007 1:28:53 PM , Rating: 2
I'd respond to your first paragraph, but unfortunately I can't make heads or tails out of it. The second paragraph is a bit clearer:

> "The cost savings between petrol and diesels are significant and real. "

Of course, and I never denied it. However, no one can deny that diesels still use a nonrenewable fossil fuel and still generate emissions. They are therefore not a long-term solution.


RE: First Post
By Lord 666 on 11/15/2007 2:26:17 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry about the first paragraph, I've been practicing my political-speak.

quote:
The upshot is that even if everyone in the nation switched to a diesel hybrid, in 2-3 decades our emissions would be right back where they started


With the recent talk of increasing fleet economy to 35mpg by 2025, the Big Three and Toyota have said it cannot be done. But if the US switches all vehicles to diesel hybrids as you state, it would give the US 2-3 decades before emissions comes back to the current leve(and implied fuel economy as you early indicate 35%+ fuel savings by using straight diesel. It would also meet the 35mpg fleet economy instantly.

However, we both agree that nuclear and hydrogen power is THE long term solution.


RE: First Post
By masher2 (blog) on 11/15/2007 2:41:32 PM , Rating: 2
> " It would also meet the 35mpg fleet economy instantly."

Agreed. However, the OP said "how about some Bluetec Disels instead. " That implies dropping hydrogen entirely in favor of sole reliance on diesels. Which of course, doesn't solve anything but a short-term problem.

> "However, we both agree that nuclear and hydrogen power is THE long term solution"

Yes, we're in total agreement on this point.


RE: First Post
By Cygni on 11/15/2007 3:48:39 PM , Rating: 2
Something of note on the subject of using nuclear power to produce hydrogen is the Sulfur-iodine cycle and high temperature electrolysis.

Currently, hydrogen is produced through steam reformation of natural gas... which unfortunately counts CO2 as its primary bipoduct (actually CO first, but CO2 after a secondary reaction). Also, using straight electrolysis to break down water is highly energy inefficient. We would be better off simply using electric cars over using large scale electrolysis.

However, future GenIV nuclear reactors could produce absolutely massive amounts of hydrogen very efficiently directly from water through both high temperature electrolysis... and perhaps further in the future, the sulfur-iodine cycle. GenIV reactors are expected online by 2030... which could prove to be the critical point for any move to a nuclear/hydrogen economy. HTE would massively boost CO2 friendly hydrogen production, and should be able to undercut the price of fossil fuel derived hydrogen by a notable margin.

Just throwin' in some more info into the pot, hah.


RE: First Post
By whydoibother on 11/15/2007 11:30:53 AM , Rating: 1
This car doesn't use coal. It uses natural gas. See my post below.


RE: First Post
By SeeManRun on 11/15/2007 11:43:19 AM , Rating: 2
I am not sure radiation is something that just gets released like you imply. Also, not sure how coal releases anything radioactive.


RE: First Post
By masher2 (blog) on 11/15/2007 11:49:42 AM , Rating: 2
Your average coal-fired power plant releases over a kg of uranium each day...from that found naturally within the coal itself.


RE: First Post
By Chernobyl68 on 11/15/2007 11:59:44 AM , Rating: 2
people almost always confuse "radiation" with "radioactive contamination"

from: http://greenwood.cr.usgs.gov/energy/factshts/163-9...

quote:


Abundance of Radioactive Elements in Coal and Fly Ash
Assessment of the radiation exposure from coal burning is critically dependent on the concentration of radioactive elements in coal and in the fly ash that remains after combustion. Data for uranium and thorium content in coal is available from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), which maintains the largest database of infor-mation on the chemical composition of U.S. coal. This database is searchable on the World Wide Web at: http://energy.er.usgs.gov/products/databases/ CoalQual/intro.htm. Figure 1 displays the frequency distribution of uranium concentration for approximately 2,000 coal samples from the Western United States and approximately 300 coals from the Illinois Basin. In the majority of samples, concentrations of uranium fall in the range from slightly below 1 to 4 parts per million (ppm). Similar uranium concentrations are found in a variety of common rocks and soils, as indicated in figure 2. Coals with more than 20 ppm uranium are rare in the United States. Thorium concentrations in coal fall within a similar 1–4 ppm range, compared to an average crustal abundance of approximately 10 ppm. Coals with more than 20 ppm thorium are extremely rare.
During coal combustion most of the uranium, thorium, and their decay products are released from the original coal matrix and are distributed between the gas phase and solid combustion products.


Coal, being carbon, is pretty much not radioactive at all. But it is a matrix of material deposited millions of years ago and so obviously that not all that's there.


RE: First Post
By JumpingJack on 11/15/2007 2:01:34 PM , Rating: 3
... And if Christopher Columbus would have listened and believed the world flat he would have not discovered the new world.

...and if Edison had given up on his first attempt, then we would have no light bulb.

...and Albert Sabin decided it was easier to treat polio rather than prevent it there would be no polio vaccine.

... and if man had not the ambition and, ironically a fuel cell, Niel Armstrong would have not taken that small step.

The nay sayers and critics are the one without vision, true visionaries look past the hurdles to the goal, the struggle to get there is just a momentary pause.

Hydrogen is the future gentlemen, begin to accept it.


RE: First Post
By martinrichards23 on 11/17/2007 11:17:11 AM , Rating: 2
Could not agree more.

Anyone who understands the relevant chemistry, physics and economics can see clearly that hydrogen is the only feasible medium/long term solution.


"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki