VIDEO: Top Gear tests the Honda FCX Clarity
Click above to watch the video
Earlier today, we showed you Top Gear's first test of the Tesla Roadster. In that clip, it was alluded to that there would be something later in the same episode that would render the Roadster completely irrelevant. Here it is: the Honda FCX Clarity, which is also electric but gets its charge from hydrogen. James May travels all the way from the UK to LA, California, to put the Clarity through its paces, and he happens to meet another familiar face while there.
James and Jay (Leno, that is) take some time to reflect on the Honda's impact on their favorite hobby, that of driving classic cars on the weekends, and conclude that the FCX Clarity and hydrogen cars in general will someday be the saviors of the automotive world - just as the internal combustion engine was the savior of the horse (huh?). Sure, there may be a few issues to address before that can happen, not the least of which are hydrogen capture, transportation and storage... but that's all going to be worked out in - you guessed it - the future, right? Watch the full video after the break.
[Source: YouTube]
Video:
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
quixote 6:37PM (12/15/2008)
Top Gear is great fun, but that was a pretty stupid report. Nothing about the way hydrogen is currently made from coal. Nothing about how it could be made via photovoltaics. Nothing about the CO2 implications either way. Nothing about the infrastructure and storage issues that make plug-in electrics, so far, vastly more doable. Nothing about recent advances in storage tech that are good news for hydrogen.
D-, TG. D-. And that's with the curve.
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 6:47PM (12/15/2008)
My understanding is hydrogen is currently made from natural gas with steam reformation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming
Which is only a little better than making it from coal.
I personally don't see hydrogen taking off until we find a way to store more in a tank. I'm not saying that won't happen either, I firmly believe there will be progress made. But right now, those advances are not realized.
Petter 5:37PM (12/16/2008)
You can't really make compressed hydrogen for fuel cells with coal or natural gas as carbon monoxide poisons the fuel cells. So you really need much purer hydrogen produced by electrolysis which isn't such a good thing in coal U S A.
Of course does fuel cells have batteries too making it an expensive tech. The Honda with compressed hydrogen is as best it gets, but it's not really efficient because of the massive amount of electricity needed to make the fuel. An ICE on natural gas would be more efficient in the US.
Kitko 6:50PM (12/15/2008)
While I do agree that electric cars in its Volt or Prius incarnations are only half-thought out, the report on Honda FCX was rather poor.
Aside from Quixote said, Honda was presented as the only alternative, as the only existing alternative. But that's not true and if the BBC had done their research properly, they'd avoid falling into the Honda's marketing an PR trap.
There was nothing in the report about the fact that Mazda has been happily leasing its hydrogen cars for about two years in Japan, that it has been running its own hydrogen station infrastructure, and that Mazda's solution is actually better for the near term future - hydrogen RX-8s and Mazda5/Premacy are bi-fuel, using standard Rotary engine that can run on both gas and hydrogen and can exist without the expensive hydrogen producing background.
Sure, Mazda's not making money on those, but neither is Honda.
Reply
jon 3:22AM (12/16/2008)
To the commentator who mentioned the Mazdas and other 'bi-fuel' hydrogen...
No, those are the 'half thought' solutions. Using a regular ICE with hydrogen is much less efficient (about 1/4 if that) than a true hydrogen fuel cell. A true fuel cell/electric motor setup like the FCX is much better than an ICE style hydrogen engine.
Andrew 7:10PM (12/15/2008)
Here is an example of some horrible reporting by TG. They totally ignored the crazy cost of this car ($500,000-$1,000,000), its dependence of fossil fuels (unless you want to spend a massive amount on creating hydrogen from solar), and the huge problem of creating new hydrogen fueling stations.
They also still make fun of the Prius yet the FCX Clarity copies the design of the Prius and has the same average performance (0-60 in under 9 seconds).
Get rid of the Honda PR pamphlet and do your own reporting TG.
Reply
mmstowes 8:19PM (12/15/2008)
The Prius copies the first gen Insight and the CR-X. Aside from Toyota teat suckling, what's your point?
Andrew 8:22PM (12/15/2008)
That they make fun of the Prius design (being ugly) and they should carry that criticism over to the the FCX because they look almost the same.
noz 2:12AM (12/16/2008)
@ANDREW:
Your point about infrastructure is pointless. If you want to move ahead into the future, you WILL HAVE TO invest in the new technology and infrastructure. There was also no infrastructure for gasoline either...but over time, because money was to be made, the infrastructure came. Because of the money made and greed inherent, there didn't seem to be a problem spending BILLIONS on making highways, freeways, and fuel stations in the past did it? So why complain now? Particularly NOW when we NEED the change, not just want it?
As far as all this whining about creating hydrogen...do you even realize what it takes to get crude oil? The damage it causes to the environment and ocean life JUST to find it?
Some of you don't seem to think ahead....you insist on comparing new technology in its infancy to old technology that has been around for a long time. There will never be progress if that is the way people think.
jake 2:28AM (12/16/2008)
@noz
I take it you didn't see the early Tesla part. The Tesla Roadster part was balanced, it showed the negative and postive sides of the car. The Clarity review was basically all based on the PR from hydrogen, basically a puff piece, no mention of negatives and with dubious science (scraping off hydrogen?) This is why a lot of people who know anything about the negative sides of hydrogen got pissed off. Andrew's not really comparing hydrogen to the petrol side, but rather likely to the EV side.
jon 1:04PM (12/16/2008)
True, hydrogen, like electricity, requires some method for production... this might be coal, oil, or gas based. Or, it might be wind, solar, or hydroelectric based. That part is really up to us.
The thing that gets me is... an electric battery and hydrogen fuel cell are really the same thing. Its just that you recharge an electric battery with current (electrons, or lack of them), and you recharge a hydrogen battery (fuel cell) with physical hydrogen (electrons that happen to have some other atomic matter with them in the form of an atom... but really the same thing). Other than that, they are very much the same thing (even in efficiency and sources for generation), only that with hydrogen, you can refill very fast and therefore use it for cross country trips.
I would imagine a 'hybrid' of hydrogen fuel cells and electric batteries is the most likely outcome. Fact is, electricity will most likely still be cheaper for some time, so having a 'plug-in' hybrid that does the first 40-80 miles on pure electric, then goes over to hydro seems the most likely option. This way, there is no gas generator like with a Volt/PHEV, as the electric motor works with both hydro and the battery.
It is speculated that in the long term, it will cost us about 1 trillion in infrastructure to convert to hydrogen. Compared to the many decades that we have been sending billions a day overseas, this is a drop in the bucket. Its alot, but in the end, a wind and solar based (perhaps home solar charging) system will provide an endless supply of fuel after it is set up. So it might cost alot to get started, but in the end, we will end up with a constant free source of energy. Hard to put a price on that...
Andrew 8:07AM (12/16/2008)
Noz, A few points for clarification. First the point about infrastructure is that if we were to move to a fully electric car you can buy your infrastructure for $15 at your local home depot or even splurge on a $30 cord if your really feel its necessary. I do believe we have to move to alternative energy and I don't advocate for the status quo at all, I am advocating for the electric car and the plug in hybrid. If hydrogen is the better electricity carrier then we should do it but there are so many obstacles in the way that electric cars seem like the natural choice.
If competing tech (electric car) isn't progressing faster then we should move to hydrogen but that is obviously not the case because battery costs are coming down so much and batteries are improve to where eventually in the near future we will be able to "recharge" in 15-30 minutes.
GoodCheer 10:40AM (12/16/2008)
Jon wrote: "(...) an electric battery and hydrogen fuel cell are really the same thing. (...) (even in efficiency and sources for generation)."
-ah... except that in BOTH cases, the vehicle will be driven by an electric motor. Once you get the hydrogen out of the storage tank, you still have to convert it to electricity. That's one of the places were you lose your efficiency.
noz 12:11PM (12/16/2008)
@ JAKE:
I never remarked about the show's content. I would venture to suggest that whatever unanswered questions you have about a review regarding anything really, you would take the initiative and find out on your own.
The show merely increased exposure of a car to thousands of people who's heads are otherwise stuck up Jeremy Clarkson's stupid arse.
noz 12:14PM (12/16/2008)
@ANDREW:
I guess time will tell. But regardless of who does it, anyone who dismissed a technology that can truly change our energy source and be infinitely abundant is out of their mind for at least not trying.
And my point was that infrastructure costs should not be a factor in developing a technology.
jon 1:14PM (12/16/2008)
Good Cheer wrote: "-ah... except that in BOTH cases, the vehicle will be driven by an electric motor. Once you get the hydrogen out of the storage tank, you still have to convert it to electricity. That's one of the places were you lose your efficiency."
How much though? Its a 'pure' reaction and a very efficient one. A typical ICE gets what... 10-15% efficiency at best? An electric gets about 90%, maybe more (depends on the power factor, back EMF, etc... of the motor which through the controller, can be even higher, like 98%). A fuel cell does have that extra 'stage', but its still a very efficient one... something like 90%, so total losses are 10% and 10% maybe... and thats still about 4x more efficient than an ICE. Unless its a combustion driven hydrogen engine... then its different... then you are back to typical ICE operation and efficiency... which is a power dump compared to true fuel cell operation.
Chris M 12:04AM (12/17/2008)
Jon, there is a considerable difference in efficiency (electricity in / electricity out) between H2 fuel cells and batteries.
The combined efficiency of charger and LiIon batteries is 85%. The combination of electrolyzer, compression for storage, and PEM fuel cell is only 24%.
The PEM fuel cell by itself is only 50% efficient, the highest efficiency fuel cell is an alkaline fuel cell at about 85% but it requires pure H2 and pure O2 without a trace of CO2 and costs even more than the PEM fuel cells. Not suprising that alkaline fuel cells are unsuitable for automotive use.
Greg 7:29PM (12/15/2008)
Though it pains me to admit this (since I'm a huge TG fan), that was a monumentally stupid show. They ignored not only the facts-- e.g. that hydrogen is only a storage medium, not an energy source, that it requires for production either gas (thus emitting CO2) or electricity (ditto), that the distribution infrastructure is prohibitively expensive, etc. etc.-- but they also ignore they economics. Take a given amount of natural gas and use it to make hydrogen to drive your car, and you'll go a shorter distance than if you took that same amount of natural gas and use it to generate electricity to charge batteries on which to run your car. PLUS, batteries have lots more potential for technological improvements (try googling "Yi Cui batteries"). PLUS, there's already an infrastructure for electricity.
Top Gear simply didn't do its homework. Shame.
Reply
icanhaspayday 8:19PM (12/15/2008)
Video no longer available :(
Reply
EVdriver 8:36PM (12/15/2008)
Worst TopGear comedy ever! Jeremy and his ignorant crew did it again.
1:37 "There are no batteries"
Reply