Hydrogen Honda debuts in 2008. Only emission is water

[Bertuzzied]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071115...lesenvironment
FCX Clarity. Looks cool.


How and where would you fill it up? the lease is $600/month. Is hydrogen expensive?

I took an environmental course back in university and they said that they created a hydrogen powered car engine back in the late 60's. But i guess the oil companies bought all the patents and it disappeared.

hmmm should Honda be worried about backlash from the oil companies?

[Bertuzzied]

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2007/11/honda-fcx-clari.html
Consume will be the equivalent of 68 miles per gallon.

The company also develops a home fueling station which will use home’s existing natural gas supply in order to produce hydrogen.

The four-door sedans will be released to a limited number of people that live near hydrogen refueling centers, like Irvine, Santa Monica and Torrance.
They will be able to take them home and drive them wherever they like, almost 270 miles before refill. The lease term will be used for the company to get information regarding the vehicle.
Dan Bonawitz, vice president of corporate planning and logistics for Honda said: “At the end of the lease, we definitely want them back.”

[MelBridgeman]

it omits water? water vapour? doesnt water vapour account for most of Earth's natural greenhouse which warms the planet..

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

it omits water? water vapour? doesnt water vapour account for most of Earth's natural greenhouse which warms the planet..

Water vapour in the upper atmosphere is a greenhouse gas (although I'm not sure if you could say it accounts for "most" of the Earth's greenhouse effect), but do we know if this car emits vapour that will reach a high altitude or simply quickly condense and fall to the road?

[worth]

so what is the energy usage to generate the hydrogen through natural gas as compared to refining oil and your car's combusion engine?

[Moose]

The effects of different greenhouse gases are highly dependent on their location within the atmosphere. Water vapour contained within the stratosphere is naturally occuring, and would be considered a contributor to the greenhouse effect, but water vapour produced at the Earth's surface I imagine isn't of great consequence. Another example is ozone, which is an essential element in the stratosphere, used to shield the planet from harmful UV-B and UV-C radiation through a continuous formation-dissociation reaction. In the lower atmosphere, ozone is a major component of smog and air pollution.

Water vapour is produced in all automotive combustion cycles anyways, albeit not in the quantities that would be produced in a hydrogen powered car. One of the primary concerns with the feasibility of hydrogen is the production and storage of fuel. I have seen the facilities of the alternative fuels team at the University of Waterloo, and they have a specially made, fenced in storage area for the hydrogen they use for their H2 powered Equinox. Regulations for storage of hydrogen are strict due to potential explosions and combustion.

The generation of hydrogen from natural gas supplies at homes is interesting. When I took a course on the subject of alternative fuels it seemed one of the biggest stumbling blocks was the generation and distribution of hydrogen. This, at least, seems to be a good developmental idea.

Edited to add an interesting note: At the alternative fuels competition this year (Challenge X), the University of Waterloo was the only entry with a hydrogen powered car. GM hosted the event at their proving grounds in Mesa Arizona. All of the teams, with the exception of Waterloo, had their cars presented inside a GM building for judging, presentations, etc. Waterloo had their car placed outside in a tent, due to the concerns with the safety of hydrogen fuel leaking/storage issues. I wonder if things like that would allow consumers to have second thoughts of having a hydrogen powered car and mini-hydrogen-generating station in their garages/homes.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by worth

so what is the energy usage to generate the hydrogen through natural gas as compared to refining oil and your car's combusion engine?

That's the kicker. Do you generate more greenhouse gases producing the clean fuel than you would have otherwise?

Iceland uses their geothermal to generate H2 cleanly. Do we have any hot-springs around with enough energy to generate H2?

[Nehkara]

It only emits the same amount of water as normal (gas-powered) cars. Just doesn't have all of the other garbage in the emissions.

[someguy51]

My wife works at a lab and they use hydrogen in some of their instruments. She says that it dissipates very quickly and it has to be extremely air tight for the big explosions to occur.

Interesting side note: She says that the worlds supply of helium is almost run out. They actually have to switch all their instruments to hydrogen because its getting harder and harder to get helium.

[ken0042]

One of Schwarzenegger's mandates was to have enough Hydrogen stations available in California to allow anybody to fill up in any major city; and allow travel anywhere in the state. IIRC they met that mandate earlier this year.

But yeah, the kicker is the production of the Hydrogen, and the recipe for it is water + electricity gives you hydrogen and oxygen. If it can be produced with solar, wind, or hydro then it is a really good thing. But if nobody makes a Hydrogen car, then the demand for electricty keeps getting met with coal and gas firing plants.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by ken0042

But yeah, the kicker is the production of the Hydrogen, and the recipe for it is water + electricity gives you hydrogen and oxygen. If it can be produced with solar, wind, or hydro then it is a really good thing. But if nobody makes a Hydrogen car, then the demand for electricty keeps getting met with coal and gas firing plants.

One thing that is often overlooked is the energy pay back period for things like solar and wind power. With the materials that solar cells are made of (and wind turbines for that matter - light carbon fibre, high quality bearings, etc) a lot of energy goes into manufacturing these components. If the manufacturing companies draw their energy from the grid, depending on their location, they could be using large amounts of coal or gas generated energy to make these parts. The efficiencies of solar and wind power components these days has improved considerably, but there is still the gap in manufacturing energy and production that must be considered. If hydrogen demand were to soar they couldn't possibly just get free energy from wind and solar energy. Turbines and solar panels would have to be manufactured, transported, and set up - consuming large amounts of energy.

Chances are, if hydrogen demand were to soar, it could be generated using coal/gas generated electricity. Really, long story short, there is no free lunch. It takes large amounts of energy to make environmentally friendly energy sources, and the major drive now is to increase the efficiency of these devices to reduce the energy payback period and make the switch to these sources more feasible.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Moose

One thing that is often overlooked is the energy pay back period for things like solar and wind power. With the materials that solar cells are made of (and wind turbines for that matter - light carbon fibre, high quality bearings, etc) a lot of energy goes into manufacturing these components. If the manufacturing companies draw their energy from the grid, depending on their location, they could be using large amounts of coal or gas generated energy to make these parts.

You might have touched on this, but eventually if you have enough wind and solar plants generating energy, you wouldnt have to use coal-fired energy to manufacture further equipment/components for other environmentally friendly processes....it's only really that setup time that's the issue, no?

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by someguy51

Interesting side note: She says that the worlds supply of helium is almost run out. They actually have to switch all their instruments to hydrogen because its getting harder and harder to get helium.

Yeah, some places are limiting their supply so medical purposes get it but not other purposes (party stores, etc) to ensure there is enough supply for critical purposes.

I read that the world supply has been dwindling, and one major supply was the Natural Gas rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. But many of those were damaged or shut down after Hurricane Katrina and the natural gas price hasn't rebounded enough to make it feasible to repair those rigs.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Table 5

You might have touched on this, but eventually if you have enough wind and solar plants generating energy, you wouldnt have to use coal-fired energy to manufacture further equipment/components for other environmentally friendly processes....it's only really that setup time that's the issue, no?

This is true. If enough wind turbines and solar cells were created, the use of fossil fuel generated electricity would not be needed. However, creating enough wind turbines and solar cells to replace the electricity that is generated using this fossil fuels would be an enormous task. The materials used to make these components - take carbon fibre as an example - are not common materials, so if production of these parts were to increase, costs would skyrocket. The production of the new all-composite bodied Boeing passenger aircraft has caused a global supply problem of carbon fibre. Manufacturing concerns will always impede the development of these technologies.

To fully manufacture these green energy devices from green energy, priorities would have to be set in the manufacturing process. How much energy from these sources would be needed to make the manufacturing process self-sustainable? Would you make 3 wind turbines for manufacturing energy for every 1 that could be used for supplying energy to other processes/hydrogen generation for the first 10 years until the industry becomes self-sustainable? (I am making these numbers up as an example - I have no idea what they would actually be). If that is the case, the costs would be astronomical.

This is an extremely interesting field of development (one of the reason's I have been posting so much in this thread). The developments in technology in recent years is encouraging.

For the record I am doing my Masters on computer simulation of hydrogen-enhanced combustion, partially funded by a company called Hy-Drive. The research involves examining the effect of hydrogen on combustion pollutants and on combustion efficiency. I have been studying the effects of hydrogen and feasibility of hydrogen fuels on an academic level, so I'm not just relaying some opinions I've heard voiced on a documentary or something.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

That's the kicker. Do you generate more greenhouse gases producing the clean fuel than you would have otherwise?

Iceland uses their geothermal to generate H2 cleanly. Do we have any hot-springs around with enough energy to generate H2?

Natural gas is the cleanest burning hydrocarbon available.. It doesnt produce much CO2 so it would be a good feedstock.. Its just not really a true alternative to fossil fuels..

[Flames89]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

it omits water? water vapour? doesnt water vapour account for most of Earth's natural greenhouse which warms the planet..

Water Vapour would be essentially harmless. As the air rises, and cools, the water in the air would settle out. Has to do with the Specific Heat Capacity of water...

Maybe if in the future we only drive hydrogen cars, then our highways may be a little dewy..

[Flames89]

this is a prototype. The whole energy supply chain argument also applies to electric cars... just converting one energy source into another...

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Flames89

Water Vapour would be essentially harmless.
[snip]
Maybe if in the future we only drive hydrogen cars, then our highways may be a little dewy..

That's something I've thought about. What happens in winter when that water starts to ice up the roads? Or is there just not that much water being produced?

[4X4]

Not just winter. It'd suck having constantly wet roads any time of year.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Not just winter. It'd suck having constantly wet roads any time of year.

I'd rather be a more prudent driver than one who has to inhale fumes / smog on the way to work, wouldn't you?

Wet roads is negligible to me, if that's the worst of this problem, then we really have nothing to complain about.