Hondas Fuel Cell Car and Home Power Station

[LordGT]

So Honda just announced, that they are going to release the new Honda Fuel Cell Vehicle, to a limited number of people, in Southern Calif.

With a 270 mile range, you have to live close enough to a fuel cell refill station to make it worth while for them to lease you the car.

A three-year lease term with a price of $600 per month, including maintenance and collision insurance. Sounds like a lot of money, but I'm not sure it's so bad if it covers maintenance & Insurance. Comments???

Honda Worldwide | November 14, 2007 "Honda Debuts All-New FCX Clarity Advanced Fuel Cell Vehicle"

The refill stations will be using the new Honda Home refueling station which also Heats & Cools an average size home. So you can power your home and refuel your car at home.

Honda Worldwide | Fuel Cell

Now this seems like something that may lead to less dependency on Imported Oil and take some power away from the Middle East, give us less reasons to be over there and one less reason to fight a War later on.

Sounds GREAT to me. Any thoughts?

[Jgeekw]

I'm all for being less dependent on foreign oil and being nicer to the environment, but I'm not sure if fuel cell vehicles are really the way to go.

Early estimates were showing these cars cost ~$1,000,000 to make. Fueling stations are few in number, and compressed hydrogen is somewhat dangerous.

Price wise, I think battery-electric vehicles have quite an advantage over fuel cell vehicles - not to mention the fact that we already have an electricity grid, whereas there is next to no infrastructure for hydrogen.

As an example, Tesla Motors is making a luxury (0-60 in under 4 seconds) battery-electric sports car, with a relatively small production run (probably about the same number as Honda is making of their FCV's), for ~$100,000.

It kind of makes me think these fuel cell vehicles are a big PR move, rather than a practical solution.

[LordGT]

I'm all for being less dependent on foreign oil and being nicer to the environment, but I'm not sure if fuel cell vehicles are really the way to go.

Early estimates were showing these cars cost ~$1,000,000 to make. Fueling stations are few in number, and compressed hydrogen is somewhat dangerous.

Price wise, I think battery-electric vehicles have quite an advantage over fuel cell vehicles - not to mention the fact that we already have an electricity grid, whereas there is next to no infrastructure for hydrogen.

As an example, Tesla Motors is making a luxury (0-60 in under 4 seconds) battery-electric sports car, with a relatively small production run (probably about the same number as Honda is making of their FCV's), for ~$100,000.

It kind of makes me think these fuel cell vehicles are a big PR move, rather than a practical solution.

Well Every new technology is expensive in the begining. And even our gas vehicles had dangerous explosions from a tank full of gas and rear end accidents. I think it was the Ford Pinto. But they have made cars with gas tanks fairly safe, and I think they will find a way to make the Hydrogen Cells safe too.

All the technology of the fuel cell Car is really older technology, the electric motors we are already using, brake and control systems are current technology also. The only part that is new is the way the electric motors get their JUICE, Battery or Fuel Cell. All the rest is basically the same.

So the only thing we have to perfect is the Fuel Cell itself, and stations to refill them.

Now as far as the electric cars you talk about, don't they have to be plugged in and charged from the home or some plugin station?

The big question here is where are we going to get all this extra electricity it would take to charge a huge number of electric cars if they became very popular?
We already have brownouts in some States during the Summer monts. Power shortages are nothing new to us. And it's going to get worse as we populate the earth. So are we going to build more Coal Power Plants or build very expensive Nuclear Plants to make the extra electricity? Nuclear Plants have dangerous waste products to dispose of. Which we don't do very well today. And Coal Burning Plants cause pollution. Not to mention how many Coal Miners we lose each year. Electricity is very costly in many ways.

I'm not against Electric Cars at all, in fact I'd drive one to and from work with no problems. But the overall picture of Electric cars is not a simple solution.

Batteries are not always safe either. They can blow up or catch fire. Even todays Laptops have had some batteries explode or catch fire on their users. They are heavy, they also cost a bunch to replace and dispose of when they go bad. Which is another enviromental issue.

Each new technology brings along it's own problems to solve.

Just my .02

[likearock4x4]

Well Every new technology is expensive in the begining. And even our gas vehicles had dangerous explosions from a tank full of gas and rear end accidents. I think it was the Ford Pinto. But they have made cars with gas tanks fairly safe, and I think they will find a way to make the Hydrogen Cells safe too.

All the technology of the fuel cell Car is really older technology, the electric motors we are already using, brake and control systems are current technology also. The only part that is new is the way the electric motors get their JUICE, Battery or Fuel Cell. All the rest is basically the same.

So the only thing we have to perfect is the Fuel Cell itself, and stations to refill them.

Now as far as the electric cars you talk about, don't they have to be plugged in and charged from the home or some plugin station?

The big question here is where are we going to get all this extra electricity it would take to charge a huge number of electric cars if they became very popular?
We already have brownouts in some States during the Summer monts. Power shortages are nothing new to us. And it's going to get worse as we populate the earth. So are we going to build more Coal Power Plants or build very expensive Nuclear Plants to make the extra electricity? Nuclear Plants have dangerous waste products to dispose of. Which we don't do very well today. And Coal Burning Plants cause pollution. Not to mention how many Coal Miners we lose each year. Electricity is very costly in many ways.

I'm not against Electric Cars at all, in fact I'd drive one to and from work with no problems. But the overall picture of Electric cars is not a simple solution.

Batteries are not always safe either. They can blow up or catch fire. Even todays Laptops have had some batteries explode or catch fire on their users. They are heavy, they also cost a bunch to replace and dispose of when they go bad. Which is another enviromental issue.

Each new technology brings along it's own problems to solve.

Just my .02

You make some very good points. Although I think the realistic solution will be somewhere in the middle where you have some alternate fuel source as a backup to the electric batteries which can be recharged on the fly via some sort of solar conversion or something.

I'm still liking the transporter best, however, and have heard that they are trying to work on that idea.

[Jgeekw]

You raise some excellent points, and it will be interesting to see which technology prevails over the coming years. Perhaps both fuel cells and batteries will be popular.

I think along with your big question, is the question of where will we get all of the hydrogen if fuel cell vehicles become popular. Generally it comes from electricity, but in very inefficient means (when compared to the alternative of charging a battery with that energy).



A big inspiration I've had for being pro-BEV (battery electric vehicles) is the guy that runs this EV webpage. His name is Darell and there's been a huge discussion on a (believe it or not) flashlight forum. Here is part *10* of the Alternative Fuel Vehicle thread that's been going on for quite a while now. Darell posts regularly, and really knows his stuff. Of course, he is a bit biased since he owns an EV, and used to lease another one. He has solar panels up on his roof...check out this video on how he recharges his EV. If only we could all recharge our cars for the equivalent of $0.90/gallon in our own homes.

[LordGT]

You make some very good points. Although I think the realistic solution will be somewhere in the middle where you have some alternate fuel source as a backup to the electric batteries which can be recharged on the fly via some sort of solar conversion or something.

I'm still liking the transporter best, however, and have heard that they are trying to work on that idea.

Oh, Transporters, cool, but scarey....seen those old Star Trek shows of Trasporter mistakes... Yuck

And it may vary well indeed end up being a solution somewhere in the middle.

[LordGT]

You raise some excellent points, and it will be interesting to see which technology prevails over the coming years. Perhaps both fuel cells and batteries will be popular.

I think along with your big question, is the question of where will we get all of the hydrogen if fuel cell vehicles become popular. Generally it comes from electricity, but in very inefficient means (when compared to the alternative of charging a battery with that energy).



A big inspiration I've had for being pro-BEV (battery electric vehicles) is the guy that runs this EV webpage. His name is Darell and there's been a huge discussion on a (believe it or not) flashlight forum. Here is part *10* of the Alternative Fuel Vehicle thread that's been going on for quite a while now. Darell posts regularly, and really knows his stuff. Of course, he is a bit biased since he owns an EV, and used to lease another one. He has solar panels up on his roof...check out this video on how he recharges his EV. If only we could all recharge our cars for the equivalent of $0.90/gallon in our own homes.

Well hopefully the battle for each one being the dominant power source for our cars will be a catalyst for a needed solution SOONER, rather than LATER.

Solar is big also, but it is also one of the very inefficient ways to make electricity.

I also read that making Hydrogen can be done in a couple of different ways, one involved Gasoline I believe, which just keeps us dependent on Oil. I'm not versed in how to make Hydrogen so I can't comment on how expensive or difficult it is.

My next car I would really like to make a statement and buy something Like the Toyota Prius, or the new Smart Car, an EV etc..etc..etc..

I'm just glad some of these ideas are finally making it to market instead of just showing up in a magazine somewhere.

[fretbuzz]

[QUOTE=LordGT;896422]So Honda just announced, that they are going to release the new Honda Fuel Cell Vehicle, to a limited number of people, in Southern Calif.

With a 270 mile range, you have to live close enough to a fuel cell refill station to make it worth while for them to lease you the car.

Man, that would be an around town only vehicle in Texas.

When are people going to wise up to the greenest, most affordable vehicle around? The motorcycle. How often do you see more than 2 people in a car in the commute to work?

[elr658]

The obvious answer to a motorcyclist is the motorcycle in their driveway. Unfortunately, to a transportation planner, we will never be more than a fringe group.

[LordGT]

[QUOTE=fretbuzz;896636]

So Honda just announced, that they are going to release the new Honda Fuel Cell Vehicle, to a limited number of people, in Southern Calif.

With a 270 mile range, you have to live close enough to a fuel cell refill station to make it worth while for them to lease you the car.

Man, that would be an around town only vehicle in Texas.

When are people going to wise up to the greenest, most affordable vehicle around? The motorcycle. How often do you see more than 2 people in a car in the commute to work?

270 miles would get me to and from work each week, refill and good for the weekend. Around town that is. No long trips, that's for sure...

Someone told me that Motorcycles pollute more than cars do. Now I can't verify this, but I think he meant, they pollute more percentage wise for the size motor etc..etc.. I find it hard to believe a 1500cc bike puts out more crud than a 3, 4 or 5 liter car.

Does anyone know if this is true?

[likearock4x4]

[quote=LordGT;897562]

270 miles would get me to and from work each week, refill and good for the weekend. Around town that is. No long trips, that's for sure...

Someone told me that Motorcycles pollute more than cars do. Now I can't verify this, but I think he meant, they pollute more percentage wise for the size motor etc..etc.. I find it hard to believe a 1500cc bike puts out more crud than a 3, 4 or 5 liter car.

Does anyone know if this is true?

It's NOT true.

[waltdisney]

Interesting idea Honda has there, to do an all in package.

[fretbuzz]

Hey, Bryan, that's not my post!

I'll sue for libel -if I can spell it right.

[Tod]

Whenever I've seen the claim that the "Average Motorcycle" pollutes more than an "Average Car", and I've checked the sources of the data used to make that claim, I've found that more often than not, the data being used to calculate emissions is from a late 70's study on Two Stroke motorcycles, which is then pitted against an imported economy car from the 90's. A stacked deck to be sure.

Nowadays, even those bikes that have had numerous mods are for the most part probably just as clean, if not cleaner than a car of similar displacement.
Factor in the greater economy of a bike, and it's a no brainer which one is more ecologically sound.

I question Honda's vision in the sustainability factor for a fuel-source such as this one they're touting here.

Ethanol isn't much better than fossil fuels either, since experts estimate it takes nearly 2/3 of a gallon of fossil fuel to create a gallon of ethanol, the return on the investment isn't really good enough to call it a long term solution.

*sigh*

When will our Vulcan Brothers finally share the secrets of Nutrino Fusion, and Anti-Matter with us?