You are here:
Green Car News >
Honda's FCX makes European debut

Honda's FCX makes European debut

Posted Jun 26th 2007 12:58PM

CommentsAdd

Honda's next-generation FCX Concept fuel cell vehicle made its European driving debut at the Gotland Ring in Sweden yesterday. The FCX is claimed to have a energy efficiency of around 60 percent (which is 3 times more than a gasoline car, twice as much as a hybrid - but there was no mention on how efficient was obtaining the hydrogen). Honda is developing a new fuel cell vehicle and the FCX is an intermediate step. This vehicle should be available in 2008 for Japan and the US.

Technically, the FCX concept has a so-called V Flow fuel cell platform. Whereas in previous models the hydrogen and the water formed in electricity flowed horizontally, the new platform features a vertical-flow design, which allows gravity to improve water drainage and thus efficiency. The new stack is also 20 percent smaller and 30 percent lighter, with a central tunnel layout and a power improvement of 15 kW. All this changes have allowed the FCX to be designed as a sedan. The new FCX also adds a lithium-ion battery, which helps to increase power output and global range, making it a hybrid as well. Finally, even the seat fabrics are made from Bio-Fabric, a plant-based material claimed to resist sunlight damage.

Continue reading for the full specifications according to the manufacturer.

Related:

[Source: Honda]

Specifications

Number of passengers		4
Motor	Max. Output	95kW (129PS, 127 horsepower)
	Max. Torque	256N•m (26.1kg•m, 188.8 lb-ft.)
	Type	AC synchronous motor (Honda mfg.)
Fuel Cell Stack	Type	PEFC(proton exchange membrane fuel cell, Honda Mfg.)
Fuel Cell Stack	Output	100kW
Fuel	Type	Compressed hydrogen
	Storage	High-pressure hydrogen tank (350atm)
	Tank Capacity	171 liters
Dimensions (L x W x H)		4,760 x 1,865 x 1,445mm (187.4 x 73.4 x 56.9 inches)
Max. Speed		160km/h (100 mph)
Energy Storage		Lithium Ion Battery
Vehicle Range*		570km (354 miles)

Category: Hydrogen, Honda

Tags: FCX, fcx europe, FcxEurope

Add a Comment

Sign in »

17 Comments

Filter by:

jack

I was a Honda driver.. Oddessy in fact.. til i put in the 4th tranny at less than 40,000 miles.. dont try to sell me any Hondy's.. please...

August 04 2007 at 8:12 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

James

Hi Chris M,

Don't trust every paper you find on the internet, because most of them are written by people with an agenda one way or another, or are based on outdated knowledge.

A great textbook on PEM fuel cells is "PEM Fuel Cells - Theory and Practice" by Frano Barbir.

On Mr. Bossel's paper:
It appears that Mr. Bossel had a point he wanted to make, and his math is correct for the conditions he chose. But Mr. Bossel's paper does not include the effect of pressurizing the fuel cell stack, which is used in practice to achieve higher efficiencies. His calculation is for an H2 fuel cell in air at atmospheric temperature and pressure. The voltage is proportional to the partial pressure of reactants (hydrogen and oxygen). This can be accounted for (mostly) in the Nernst equation, which calculates the voltage of the system. Operating cell voltage can be much higher than the 0.7V Mr. Bossel states, and hence also the efficiency.

I challenge you to do the calculation for fuel cell efficiency of a pressurized system at 1.5 to 2 atmospheres, and you will find it closer to 75% (LHV) at 200 degrees F. Subtract your drive train losses 10% and your blower losses 10%, and you end up with 60% tank to wheels. The excellent engineering comes in designing an efficient system around the PEM fuel cell, and that's what great product integrators like Honda and Toyota can achieve. GM is probably even better than then these two with their stack technology, but they seem to be lacking in some of the integration aspects. I expect them to do some amazing things in the near future, though.

Here is Honda's press release where they state 60%: http://world.honda.com/news/2006/4060925FCXConcept/

and they have reiterated the number several times since.

I agree, Mr. Bossell makes a good point that it is disingenuous to use LHV for efficiency calculations, but since that is the convention for automobile efficiency calculations for other fuels, that is what is used in industry.

For the 36% electrical generation efficiency, that is an average of the natural gas generation that is currently employed in the US.

Take the sum of all of the megawatt-hours of electricity generated from natural gas:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1.html

And divide by the sum of all of the natural gas that was burned:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1.html

=757974GWh/(6486761MCf x 301000kWh/MCf / 1000000kWh/GWh)
=39%

OK, 39% not 36% (I'm a poor scholar and previously I used a number I found on the internet... let that be a lesson to us both)

I agree, new plants have much higher efficiencies, but you charge your EV from the grid you have, not the grid you want. There are far more inefficient generators in use than high efficiency generators. Why? Because high efficiency costs more. The consumer pays the operating cost, not the utility, but the utility pays the capital cost.

Only by demanding higher efficiency from our utilities, and especially greater generation from renewables, and expecting to pay more for it, will we get the gird we want.

Thanks,

James

July 04 2007 at 2:36 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

James: Where do we get the 50% efficiency for PEM fuel cells? Many sources, here are just a few:

http://www.efcf.com/reports/E04.pdf
A "must read". Mentions Gibbs Free Energy and how it applies to fuel cell voltage and efficiency. Quote: "In automotive applications PEM fuel cells may reach mean voltage efficiencies of 0.75V / 1.48V = 0.50 or about 50%". Also mentions the efficiency of other parts of the H2 fuel supply, and compares it to battery electric vehicles and "diesel fueled SOFC vehicles".

http://www.rmi.org/images/other/HCSynArt-Hydrogen_Nov01.pdf
From an avid promoter of H2 fuels! Quote: "These PEM fuel cells consume fuel with nearly 50% energy efficiency. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell
Lists the efficiency of several types of fuel cells. For PEM fuel cells, 30% to 50%

http://www.batteryuniversity.com/parttwo-52.htm
www.econogics.com/en/hydrogen.doc
http://members.aol.com/fuelcells/irr4.htm

So. you see why we might question a 60% PEM fuel cell efficiency claim - but even that is more reasonable than your "60% tank-to-wheel" claim.

Now it is your turn. Where did you get your "system efficiency tank to wheel" of 60% from?
And the 36% for electrical generators?
(45% to 60% is more typical)

July 03 2007 at 3:45 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

James

Joseph,

Where do you get your 50% efficiency number for fuel cell efficiency? Tesla's website? It is completely wrong. Do the math yourself:

Gibbs Free Energy/Enthalpy for hydrogen comes out to 94.5% peak possible efficiency for the fuel cell (LHV). Of course real world is less, but it is much higher than your 50%.

Please don't post what you don't know. Misinformation is irresponsible.

Honda lists the efficiency number as SYSTEM efficiency, which is tank to wheels efficiency. This includes the motor, controller, air supply system, etc. This is a very good number! And all the fuel cell companies are only beginning their work. It will get beter in the future.

Now combine the 60% system efficiency with hydrogen generation from natural gas (70% efficiency - go look it up), and you have a relatively efficient system.

Perfect? no.

But compare it to the EV if you like - 36% electrical generation from natural gas (real number, today) x 86% battery charge/discharge (from Tesla) x 90% motor and controller. Your EV doesn't look as good as you think.

I completely agree with you - if you have your own home solar panels, your own charging system, and your own EV, and you have it plugged in all day to charge, yes, it is more efficient than the hydrogen. But that solution doesn't work for everyone. Most people charge from the grid, and the grid is not as clean as you would like it to be.

Don't attack hydrogen using misinformation. It has a tremendous role to play in our future, as do EVs.

James

June 30 2007 at 1:38 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Tony Belding

To Chris M and Der Alte. . . . Dr. Bussard's experiments while working for the US Navy achieved fusion at rates 100,000 times greater than previous IEC fusion devices. His analysis shows that IEC Polywell reactors running a boron-11 fuel cycle can work, and they should be much quicker and easier to achieve than tokamak-based reactors.

The basic underlying physics research has been done. It's just a question now of, first, repeating and confirming the experiment to everyone's satisfaction, and secondly doing the engineering work to make it into a power plant. Unfortunately, nobody has yet been willing to pony up a few million dollars to repeat the experiment, so it's stalled.

June 28 2007 at 8:31 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

some comments on comments:
Honda does not plan to sell the FCX, just a few for "lease only" sometime soon. Not many folks are willing to buy a quarter million dollar car with limited refueling options. Obviously, the Honda "home fuel station" is NOT included in the "purchase price", and is not included in the lease, either. It is a $50,000 "option", a lot to pay for a fancy natural gas powered water heater that provides a little H2 and electricity on the side. Solar is downright cheap in comparison, and has no added fuel costs.

In a future where electrical power is cheap and plentiful, H2 fuel makes even less sense, as it will still be more expensive than electricity and much more bulky than LiIon batteries. High capacity Li-Air batteries could give far greater range than H2 ever could while taking up much less space. Zinc-Air or Aluminum-Air fuel cells can be refilled much faster than high pressure H2 tanks or metal hydride tanks, and take up less space. If we build powered guideways that provide electric power "on the go", it's all over for H2 as an automotive fuel.

I see little hope for earth based fusion power. None of the fusion research projects - tokamak, stellerator, inertial confinement, magnetic confinement, Farnsworth fusor, polywell - have come anywhere near "breakeven", they've all required much more energy to operate than they could ever produce. I prefer that old reliable "gravity confinement fusion reactor" located a safe 93 million miles away.

June 27 2007 at 2:02 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

John

Since when did compressing, liquifying, storing and transporting hydrogen stop being a problem? Since when are we looking at having cheap inexhaustable electricity available everywhere? Nuclear power plants cost billions of dollars each and take many years to build. Its this whole wasteful mentality towards energy that has brought about all the problems in the first place. We didn't know better in the 50s...we should know better now. Efficiency does matter.

June 27 2007 at 1:30 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

A.Brien

This is actually the best car on earth. It don't
pollute, don't need a lot of maintenance, don't make noise. If they change their hydrogen tank for a water tank plus an electrolyser it will be much better, don't need to stop to put hydrogen. In 1986
some good technicians in the u.s.a discover a way to make hydrogen with very little electricity. I think that honda choose the politically correcness
over practicallity for putting a hydrogen tank instead of an electrolyser. I hope someone invent a home electrolyser instead of the home hydrogen station of honda. But all in all it's a move toward the best solution.

June 26 2007 at 9:04 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Tony Belding

BJD. . . Whether you charge a battery or make hydrogen (by electrolysis) you are doing the same thing: transforming electrical power into chemical energy that can be stored. Then you are turning it back to electricity to drive a motor. The advantage of hydrogen is that you can achieve greater range (depending on how it's stored) and you can fill up a tank in minutes, not hours.

A fuel cell reacts hydrogen with oxygen. You don't have to carry around the oxygen (which is far heavier of the two), you can take it from the air as you go along. You also don't have to carry around the by-product, which is water, because it goes out the tailpipe as exhaust. These are natural advantages of hydrogen fuel over batteries.

June 26 2007 at 8:28 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Kardax

BJD, I have to side with Tony. 95% of American consumers are going to spend their money on what they perceive to be the _best_value_ option. Sure, efficiency is a factor, but much bigger is what they get out of the vehicle for what they put in.

Hydrogen vehicles will fail not because of complex technical reasons, but for the simple fact that they're expensive to buy and expensive to own and offer nothing in exchange for that sacrifice.

June 26 2007 at 6:32 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply