Oh, if only the beautiful FCX Clarity came with a plug
Click above for a gallery of the FCX Clarity
The LA Times' Dan Neil loves electric cars. He also loves just how beautiful the Honda FCX Clarity is. What he doesn't like is that the Clarity uses a hydrogen fuel cell. Plug In America's Paul Scott, writing as an individual, not on behalf of PIA, I hasten to add, says that Neil's recent article, "pounds the final nail in the coffin of fuel cell vehicles." I doubt this is true, but Neil certainly doesn't mince words. He calls the Clarity, "the most expensive, advanced and impractical car ever built" and adds:
Hydrogen fuel-cell technology won't work in cars. It's a tragic cul-de-sac in the search for sustainable mobility, being used to game the California Air Resources Board's rules requiring carmakers to build zero-emission vehicles. Any way you look at it, hydrogen is a lousy way to move cars.
Not exactly subtle, is it? It is totally true that the automakers have gotten hydrogen vehicles on the road way before the infrastructure builders figured out a way to effectively get hydrogen to market. As Scott writes in a recent email, "While Dan's words should smother this foolish idea [hydrogen cars], its heart will keep beating until Schwarzenegger and Obama finally pull the plug and deny them any more of our money."
Neil ends his article this way: "Behold, the grand and lovely futility of the FCX Clarity. It's hard to scold something so wonderful, so I won't. Just bring me one that I can plug in." For more of Neil's always-interesting pontifications, listen to this.
Gallery: 2009 Honda FCX Clarity First drive
[Source: LA Times]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Matt Groom 1:53PM (2/14/2009)
Hydrogen powered vehicles are NOT a terrible idea. They're simply impractical at our current technology level, since there is no cheap and easy way to create Hydrogen (I should say CAPTURE Hydrogen) that doesn't involve burning fossil fuels, through the use of elecricity from the grid (still mostly coal for the foreseeable future, despite what Obama thinks) or by buring natural gas (which is just like burning it in your car, except you do it somewhere else with a Hydrogen powered vehicle.). My guess is that we're 25-30 years away from practical Hydrogen powered transport and just imagine what kind of battery technology we'll have then.
It's not a run-on sentence if you use parenthesises!
Reply
Gordio 9:32PM (2/14/2009)
Hydrogen fuel is expensive, but the hydrogen fuel cell "engine" costs more than your house. That's much worse.
noz 12:01AM (2/16/2009)
I think 25-30 years is optimistic...I think it'll take longer...but once here it'll change the way energy is used.
Either way, this car's shape does not sit well with me. I don't think it's a good looking car and I feel cheated that the new Insight looks like it.
jcwinnie 2:43PM (2/14/2009)
C'mon, Pinnochio Blanco. The idea is not to let people get accustomed to using a plug for their personal transportation. You and I know this to be true. Why persist in pretending otherwise.
Reply
Zeph 2:47PM (2/14/2009)
I think the problem with the hydrogen fuel cell is that it is too pratical. The Clarity concept, in it's entirety, is fueled by a home based hydrogen generator which uses solar panels. One such generator, if not sabotaged by technology obsolescence built in, could power many cars over it's lifetime, and possibly even the whole house, if there is enough solar exposure and panel area. Panels are getting better all the time. Hydrogen is a decent way to store energy. Note that I said pratical. Economical might be another matter. But our economies don't make much sense anyway, so it might be time to focus on pratical for once...
It might not be the best technically viable way to power house and home, but, if we're brutally honest about it, neither are fossil fuels and nuclear, and yet they are used as far as I can tell out of nothing but elitist preference for centralized technology.
Reply
stevejust 2:57PM (2/14/2009)
Here's how I see it:
Creating hydrogen takes electricity, that then becomes hydrogen, that in a fuel cell is converted to... electricity? Wouldn't it be far more efficient just to use the electricity as electricity? (The answer is yes.) Barring some insane breakthrough in hydrogen production and storage, it just makes more sense to concentrate on battery technology. Fuel cells are a red herring.
Hydrogen's sole purpose is to give BPShellChevronTexacoExxonMobilConocoPhillipsValero
something to latch on to.
If everyone had solar panels on their roofs generating their own electricity for their own car and home needs, not only are the oil companies done, but so is PG&E, Duke, Reliant, etc.,.
GoodCheer 3:20PM (2/14/2009)
Everything you say is perfectly true, except this part:
"Hydrogen is a decent way to store energy."
Getting 3-4 out for every 10 you put in is just not good enough. We should be trying to reduce our energy consumption here. Buying 1/3 as many solar panels and a battery just seems like it will always win out.... especially for home power where we have more flexibility with size and weight than we do in our vehicles.
Chris M 5:51PM (2/14/2009)
Practicality involves economics, something can't be considered "practical" if it is unaffordable or extravagantly wasteful.
H2 is not a good way to store electrical energy when compared to regular batteries. The equipment and storage tanks much more costly than charger and batteries. The overall efficiency is less - 24% for electrolysis/storage/fuel cell vs. 85% for charger/batteries. H2 storage tanks take up more room than batteries for the same amount of energy storage. The lifespan of PEM fuel cells is less than lead acid batteries. In short, there is not one single advantage to using H2 for energy storage.
If you want to use solar and/or wind to power your home and need energy storage, batteries would be cheaper, take up less room, and due to higher efficiency would require only 1/3 as much solar or wind equipment.
Zeph 6:25PM (2/14/2009)
Fair enough. I am perfectly able to accept that hydrogen, as a storage medium, could lose to current battery tech. I'm not saying it's better, especially if the fuel cell system is less durable and far more expensive than batteries for a lower energy density.
Luckily we still have the options of electric and ethanol, both of which could solve a fair amount of problems and are potentially renewable. And there is still some possibility in water for fuel systems imo. My bet would be electric and gasoline to ethanol flex fuel conversions at this present time. Losing a bit of faith in hydrogen, but there might be a pratical evolution of this technology. The first electric cars had way lower ranges and speeds than current models, and the Li-Ion battery breathed life into that option, so who knows what is down the road for water or for just hydrogen.
BoneHeadOtto 9:11AM (2/15/2009)
steve is right. The problem with hydrogen "fuel" is that we are not using it as a fuel but as a battery. We are TRANSPORTING ELECTRICITY USING HYDROGEN! That is a terribly inefficient way to transport electricity. I dont expect a miracle breakthrough in hydrogen production, but even if there were, it would have to be at the home, or at the gas-station that hydrogen is produced. But there will be advances in battery tech as well making hydrogen even more pointless.
jaguar879 2:46PM (2/14/2009)
Yes, because having every American plug the vehicle in to an electrical grid that can barely handle the current power demands is a GREAT idea...
Don't some parts of California already have to have rolling blackouts?
Reply
Captain Obvious 4:51PM (2/14/2009)
Ummm...most charging would be done at night.
(That time of day, when demand isn't at its peak.)
jaguar879 5:15PM (2/14/2009)
In theory... but even in the event that everyone plays by the rules and charges at night the power grid would be stretched.
Chris M 5:21PM (2/14/2009)
Most charging will be done at night when electrical demand is lowest, especially where "Time-of-use" metering provides lower rates at low demand times. Also, "Grid to Vehicle" communications makes it easier to even out electrical demand.
The "blackouts" were caused by Enron manipulating a badly deregulated electrical market, the blackouts ceased when Enron went bankrupt and the electrical market was re-regulated. I know, I'm here in California.
brandon 2:57PM (2/14/2009)
No offense to whoever this LA Times writer is, but the Top Gear crew has way more credibility in my eyes, and they seem to love fuel cells.
Reply
stevejust 3:00PM (2/14/2009)
The Top Gear guys are some of the dumbest shetheads around. Seriously. Dumber than dirt. For why they're so dumb, see my previous comment in this thread.
andrichrose 4:59PM (2/14/2009)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5thFx4hqFQ
Phil 4:09AM (2/15/2009)
I agree.
The Top Gear team might not have scientific credibility, but there is one thing JC does know: what the consumer wants.
The LA Times author is wrong, hyrdogen as a fuel is far from dead. Batteries are far from the victor. The reason is that batteries are not showing rapid enough signs of increased performance for lower costs.
Consumers would be happy with a plug in vehicle with 500 mile range with 70 mph highway ability that can be recharged in 10 minutes. Alternatively, recharge in hours, but with a range of say 1000 miles.
There are no signs of batteries being able to deliver what consumers demand. Not now, nor in the next 10 or 20 years.
Unless there is a step change in battery technology (of which there is currently no sign), hydrogen still looks like a potential winner.
Chris M 5:03PM (2/17/2009)
Phil, batteries have a huge lead over H2 in this race. First, batteries have a big advantage in energy storage efficiency. Charger and batteries combined are 85% efficient, but electrolysis, compression for storage and H2 fuel cells are only 24% efficient (electrolysis, compression and ICE engine only 6% efficient!). Energy efficiency is a big factor if we want renewable energy sources to replace fossil fuel use.
2nd, batteries have a huge advantage in cost. Those high pressure carbon fiber H2 storage tanks cost more than a battery pack, and an automotive H2 fuel cell costs around a half milllion dollars, thanks to exotic materials needed.
3rd, batteries even have an advantage in performance, with higher peak power output and longer lifespan than PEM fuel cells, and the ability to store energy from regeneration. and the ability to work in below freezing conditions where H2 fuel cells can't. For those reasons, H2 fuel cell cars are all hybrids that include batteries to supplement the fuel cell.
The sole remaining advantage to H2 fuel, fast refill, disappears with the advent of "swappable batteries" or rapid charging or "Powered roadways" or "thousand mile" batteries.
There is a lot of development going on with batteries, such as the recently announced silicon nanowire electrodes, advanced chemistries, and metal/air batteries that could increase capacity by 5 to 25 times.
Sorry, but I just don't see H2 fueled cars even coming to market, let alone being a "potential winner".
Zeph 3:10PM (2/14/2009)
Top gear hasn't got a clue. It's just entertainment. Most of the time they are just thrashing insanely expensive teens so that preteens can get excited before they develop a sex drive.
Li-Ion and battery developments could indeed make hydrogen impratical. The problem is that there's an awfully expensive battery pack that needs to be swapped out every few years. The problem with electricity, more than generating it, is storing it, and here hydrogen *might* have a place in the market.
What should decide is the market, through open competition of the technologies available. But for this to happen, big oil and excessive statism need to be dealt with and we need to seriously look at IP laws, specifically patents, which is holding a lot of stuff back. If this is done, we will probably be amazed at what can, in reality, be achieved.
Reply