Clarkson explains himself in written Tesla review, loves hydrogen
Click above to watch the video
Just when we thought the whole sordid ordeal was over and done with, Jeremy Clarkson has stirred the pot again, this time in print for his regular column at the Times. We're referring once again to the Top Gear review of the Tesla Roadster, which sparked controversy after showing a scene of the electric roadster being pushed into a garage after running out of power... except that it didn't run out of power at all. A bit later, the BBC, which produces the series, admitted that the scene was faked and was meant to depict what would actually happen in the case of a depleted battery pack. Clarkson, though, responded that he wasn't allowed to drive the car into the garage and that was why it was filmed being pushed. Um, right.
After reading Clarkson's review online, it's clear that the biggest problem the TG presenter has with the Roadster is that it's not powered by hydrogen. Clarkson suggests that even if the car were completely flawless, it would still be old-tech, since hydrogen is clearly the fuel of the future as far as he's concerned, and until then, apparently we should all be content with fossil fuels. And on that bombshell, we consider this case officially closed.
[Source: Times Online]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Lad 6:43PM (1/12/2009)
H2 has been the fuel of the future for 30 years and will remain the fuel of the future. So, until the future is here, how about building practical plug-in electric drive cars and work to produce long range auto batteries instead fossil fueled, 25% efficient, internal combustion engine autos...just as an interim solution until our H2 future shows up at the doorstep...don't you know!
Reply
Nemoudeis 6:48PM (1/12/2009)
Aren't fuel cells 19th Century technology anyway? If i remember right, I think they're actually OLDER than the internal combustion engine.
Reply
noz 2:48AM (1/13/2009)
Hydrogen processes are already abundantly used every day....not that most people are aware of it.
Mike!!ekiM 7:00PM (1/12/2009)
Shill Alert!
Anyone proposing H2 is either mis-informed or an oil shill.
Plus, who's bankrolling this Gas Guzzler Glory Show? Looks like the oil industry has given up on global warming 'debunking' to put their money into this show.
Reply
noz 2:44AM (1/13/2009)
That's the stupidest thing I have ever read.
Hydrogen is the future....it is the only renewable source available that has the ability to fuel transportation needs at the capacity we have now.
When you can come up with an alternative to fossil fuels, let us know.
It won't matter what you shills say anyway...what needs to be done will be done. Like all the shills saying we'd never get to the moon, I wonder what they are saying now....oh yeah that's right...they are saying hydrogen is impossible.
It's true...history repeats itself.
Don 4:17AM (1/13/2009)
Noz, you are the dumbest person online on ABG, where the hell are you from? You are dumber than an animal, you are pure s k u m
What comes out of your mouth is nothing but a heap of crap. Get an education you under-educated retard:
Hydrogen is 70% less 'energy efficient' than electricity, as it takes huge amounts of electricity to produce and store.
You must be on crack, no doubt about it. Get a brain, f-stain.
Don 4:19AM (1/13/2009)
Noz ........it seems like the best part of yourself ran down your mama's a$$ crack and ended up as a stain on the mattress
DasBoese 8:22AM (1/13/2009)
lol, noz.
Truth be told, hydrogen isn't "impossible".
It's just impractical, inefficient and ridiculously expensive compared to everything else.
It's a good rocket fuel though.
Chris M 1:54AM (1/15/2009)
noz, Hydrogen has been "the fuel of the future" for over a century, and will probably continue to be the fuel of the future for centuries to come. unfortunately, as a fuel, it suffers from a lot of problems, being expensive, bulky and difficult to store, prone to leakage, and extremely flammable. In addition, H2 storage tanks are expensive, and H2 fuel cells are absurdly expensive.
There are alternatives to fossil fuels, including electricity and several biofuels, that are cheaper, easier to store, and safer than H2. If noz hasn't heard about them, it is only because he has refused to listen.
i summon you 7:14PM (1/12/2009)
This is what happens when you let a charismatic gearhead appoint himself an authority on all things engineering, because in reality, he doesn't know shit.
Reply
paulwesterberg 7:36PM (1/12/2009)
Jeremy Clarkson is an idiot. He probably believes in pink unicorns too.
I hereby challenge the dittohead clarkson to an endurance race across america(or europe or any other large landmass of at least 3000km). I get to drive the Tesla($110k msrp) and he gets to drive any comparably priced hydrogen car.
Stipulations: Your entire fuel budget is only $500. You must pay market rates for your fuel. If you decide to take your fuel with you then the cost of the container is allocated against your fuel budget. If you must convert your fuel you must include the cost of the converter.
Granted, It may take me a number of days to drive 3000k, with 9 full rechargings neccessary, but I would have plenty of time to enjoy my travels, see the sights and dine at local establishments. Jeremy wont be able to find a 13 second hydrogen car for 110k, he wont even be able to buy one with a fuel cell, the best he could do is probably a bmw with a converted intake manifold. That would get him 150-200 miles until his tank ran out of gas. My recharges would each cost about $4. You cant buy hydrogen for any price, except for one station in LA and one in washington dc.
Find Hydrogen fueling stations:
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/stations/find_station.php
Most of them say private access only or fleet vehicles only.
Reply
Chris M 10:00PM (1/12/2009)
Yeah, finding H2 filling stations is a major problem, especially outside of LA, but lets assume that it isn't a problem. Current H2 fuel prices is $8 to $10 per Kg, lets assume the cheaper $8 price. $500 would then buy 62.5 Kg of H2, enough to drive an FCX Clarity for about 4,625 miles, or a BMW Hydrogen 7 for 937 miles (Ouch!)
At 12 cents per Kwh, that $500 would buy about 4,167 Kwh of electricity, that would propel a Tesla Roadster for about 17,362 miles (Yay!)
Hmm, maybe the challenge should be to cross the continent on $100 worth of fuel...
Of course, for the cost of one FCX Clarity, we could buy 5 or 6 Roadsters, stash them at strategic locations, and by swappig cars we wouldn't have to stop for recharging for over 1,000 miles...
noz 2:47AM (1/13/2009)
Back to square one aren't you.
It's like arguing that no one should explore the new restaurant around the corner because the older more established one is already here.
Chris M 1:23AM (1/15/2009)
To extend the restaurant metaphor, Noz is suggesting that we all go chow down at the new high class restaurant that serves tiny little chi-chi burgers for $50 each, with the next open reservations sometime next year, and forget about going to that aging McDonalds next door...
Earl 8:07PM (1/12/2009)
Clarkson has always held a bias against anything electric, he's finally admitting so. The Tesla review was setup to look bad, maybe Fox News should carry his show.
Reply
Andy 9:00PM (1/12/2009)
Clarkson still has wet dreams over ancient technology such as Concorde. He is obviously living 20-30 years behind the times.
A man to entertain us and not to be taken seriously. He is a writer of comedy pieces, pandering to UK baby boomers.
Reply
Herm 9:39PM (1/12/2009)
H2 may still be the future, but only where high performance is desired and cost is not important.. ie The Military. H2 can be manufactured aboard aircraft carriers with nuke power or in major land bases with small portable nukes and used to fuel helicopters, big airplanes (nothing that would need in-flight refueling), drones, jeeps etc. The military does not care much about the high cost of fuel cells in any case. The will not care about the loses in compressing H2 either. They do care about transporting diesel and kerosene.
Cost is important to everyone else so H2 will never be used there.. except maybe by forming natural gas into hydrogen in place and fueling a fuel cell.. if fuel cells ever go down in cost and up in reliability. This would be good for local electricity generation.
Reply
Chris M 10:04PM (1/12/2009)
One of the neat tricks with solid oxide fuel cells is that they can run directly on natural gas, no reformer needed. Unfortunately, they run at rather high temperatures, fine for large stationary power plants but not suitable for small vehicles.
Serge 10:40AM (1/13/2009)
I will disagree with that assessment, Herm. It is high time for reexamining the financial black-hole that is the "military budget." Perhaps "the military does not care much about the high cost of fuel cells", but as a taxpayer (picking up part of the tab) I do.
I would like my tax $ to fund military technologies that are robust, reliable and have economic potential for civilian adoption. I fail to see how hydrogen as energy carrier for transportation passes this simple test.
andrichrose 1:57AM (1/13/2009)
Clarkson used to be funny, now he's just downright
embarrassing , so obviously in the pocket of big oil !
and the segment from this show on fuel cells , so
slanted, and put together in such a way as to enable
them to prenounce the TESLA "irrelevant"!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5thFx4hqFQ
Reply