What is Digg?61 Comments
- mrgreen4242, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Car looks nice, I'd buy a hybrid that looked like that any day. Or even an electric car that I could charge off the grid or with home solar/wind/whatever power. BUT, since there aren't any hydrogen stations except at a couple Honda dealers on the west coast people are going to HAVE to use this home hydrogen generator. I'd be all gung-ho about that if it worked off of some sort of renewable resource (say splitting hydrogen out of water or something using whatever the cheapest means of electricity you can find is).
The sad fact is that hydrogen is just a carrier of energy, and in this case that energy is coming from natural gas, which is becoming just as expensive, if not more expensive, than gas. Here is one chart of those price spikes and increases: http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/NG/W. While experts expect that peak natural gas will come after peak oil production by a few years, that could easily be accelerated by people running cars and houses off it.
Overall, this is probably an OK move in the long run. If they can get people to bite then maybe more places will install "hydrogen pumps" or 3rd parties will develop other methods of producing or delivering hydrogen to the home. (I'm not an engineer, but would hydrogen lines, similar to natural gas line, to peoples homes?) That could start to ween us off of fossil fuels by making us another step removed from them - the car runs on hydrogen, which we make out of a fossil fuel because we have it relatively cheaply right now, but when that gets to expensive we can make it by other means and in theory not disrupt our economy (as much).
Anyone know if this new model will look like the car in the main article or if it's the hatchback in some of the linked stories? I assumed the hatchback was the 2004 model that was talked about, and the 2006 model would be the sedan pictured... - DWatch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I just love the arguments on these hydrogen vs. gas threads. Lots of misconceptions, half-truths, even myths, stated as fact. Everyone seems to be an expert, and no one really is, especially not me. However, I have been following these developments very carefully for the last decade or so.
Some things I've learned in the past few years....
Yes, hydrogen is only an energy 'carrier', but so is gasoline. Its simply a carrier of solar energy that struck the earth millions of years ago, creating vegetation, which was then subducted into the earth, where it was pressure cooked into crude oil. Every fuel out there is an 'energy carrier'... don''t let that term confuse you. It is the net energy-in vs. the energy-recovered efficiency you need to look at. Also important in the argument of 'whats best', is the total damage to the environment the process of converting energy to the carrier then back again. So far, a renewable energy source (wind / hydro / solar / wave / biomass) that converts water to hydrogen (and then the hydrogen back to water in a fuel cell) looks like its the least damaging in the long run. Using stored solar energy in the form of hydrocarbons has one massive drawback, we are freeing into the atmosphere all that carbon trapped with the hydrogen. Also, depending on who you talk to, oil will run out one day. Everyone has a different opinion about when, but most agree we are using it faster than the Earth is generating it. Even if it doesn't run out in the next century, I don't want my children living with the results of yet ANOTHER century of releasing massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.
Free cooking oil will not be free if everyone starts using it. If there is a demand for something, they (the restaurants) will start charging for it. In fact, in most big cities, fast food chains are already selling their used oil. Its normally only small mom-and-pop dinners or small towns that don't already have a used cooking oil reclamation plan already in place. As far as using veggie oil for every vehicle application in the future, I don't think that will happen if there is a clean, easy to use, cheap hydrogen solution. We might use the oil for things like jet fuel or large ships engines, or other applications where the lack of efficient combustion is offset by the concentration of energy per volume.
Using natural gas for the source of hydrogen might not be an ideal solution right now, but its the best one we have, today. Once we get weened off the internal combustion engine, the next step is to free ourselves from the gas pipeline. Once there becomes a critical mass of customers using hydrogen, there will be incentives to research and market home/commercial hydrogen production using clean energy. By the time that happens, the technology to convert water to hydrogen will be much more efficient, giving us economically viable options. There will always be a cost of energy to convert the water to hydrogen, that's simply the law of thermodynamics, but the overall cost to a consumer will drop, due to mass production, better efficiency, and government incentives, and new technologies that we can't conceive of yet. Did you know they are working on a hydrogen producing algae that eats animal waste? Its already here, its only how much it costs to set up the plants versus how much they can charge for the hydrogen (and lack of a strong consumer base) that's stopping them from going into full production plants at this time.
Hydrogen stored in a massive, lightning attracting, fragile, flammable bags floating hundreds of feet from the ground is dangerous (Hindenburg argument). Hydrogen stored in metal tanks in your trunk, especially in hydride form, is safer that that metal tank of highly explosive gasoline. Consumer storage of hydrogen has progressed in the past decade or to from storing it in crygenic form, then highly pressurized, then low pressure tanks, then chemically, now, and most exciting, in metals in the form of hydrides. They can store more hydrogen per square centimeter than anything else, except the cryo method. Obviously there are no statistics on the safety of a lighter-air-gas vs. liquid fuel in a car crash, since there isn't a large enough base of consumers that have hydrogen to make it statistically valid, but common sense would say that lying on the pavement in a puddle of flammable fluids waiting for a spark is far more dangerous than a gas that floats away from the scene of the accident and and dissipates very quickly. And, it does no damage to the environment after the crash... bonus! - SeanMoney, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Car looks super Hot, Just what we need though a bunch of speed racers drivin around mini hindenburgs.
- mrgreen4242, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And another thing... what the ***** happened to the Saturn EV1/2? GM just dropped this whole product line off the face of the Earth. Here's a working, daily driven by nearly 1000 people for 2 years electric car that could go up to 100 miles on a "quick" charge (40 minutes from a home charging station), and 130 from a full overnight charge. The EV2 had NiMH batteries, which are good for 1000 charge cycles, which could easily be 4 years of real service.
Here we have a perfectly usable car that can be run entirely on renewable power, using a storage technology that is fairly low environmental impact (NiMH is pretty decent as far as batteries go) being discontinued and a new "alternative fuel" vehicle that still needs a product owned by all of the major gas companies... hmmm... suspicious to say the least! - REpler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah well that's not what the HEADLINE says.
- squegie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ok, and Honda is really pulling out all the stops with this one:
From http://world.honda.com/news/2006/4060108FCX/ :
Approaching the vehicle, the driver is recognized by vehicle sensors and intelligent cameras unlocking the doors. The driving unit also automatically sets the steering wheel, accelerator pedal, and instrument panel to the optimal position for the driver. The instrument panel tilts up and down 45 degrees in response to vehicle speed to give either a sense of security or a relaxed feel. A system installed in the instrument panel senses the driver's line of sight shifting toward menu icons, and operates switches accordingly, allowing the driver hands-free operation of audio, AC and other systems. - osbjmg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sure, looks cool for a dinosaur-inspired body. Why not call it the parasaurolophus?
pic: http://davidguy.brinkster.net/toptrumps/dinosaurs/big/parasaurolophus.jpg - REpler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1That's not the FCX.
This is: http://corporate.honda.com/environment/fuel_cells.aspx?id=fuel_cells_fcx - Ebeniz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0not bad... 134hp...
- osbjmg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@repler - RTF Description: "Honda quietly announced that they would build a production vehicle based on the FCX concept."
- karch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0it's a very pretty car.
- kherrick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@cmos - yeah, I was just about to comment on the same thing... pretty small screen though. I wonder if that was really in the pic --
http://cars.blogs.ca/2006/02/06/hydrogen-powered-honda-fcx-to-go-into-production/3/ - bluesassley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Quote "the energy is then fed to three efficient motors, two compact 25kW motors in each of the rear wheels and a larger energy-efficient 80kW motor in the front. The three motors combine to make a total of 100kW" Who the hell wrote this and can they count? I thought that would be 130kW?
- Dagur, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Here's hoping the Icelandic government will lower tolls and taxes on hydrogen cars like this one. If so I'm definitely getting one :-)
- MSStategrad2001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@repler
This is not the FCX that you are linking to. As the article states, "Honda quietly announced that they would build a production vehicle based on the FCX concept." Which means that the production model, pictured in the article, will be the version that will go into production a few years from now. - squegie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Some more detailed information is available here:
http://www.hondanews.com/CatID1000?mid=2004072847987 - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wow looks awesome also...minority report anyone?
- kidtux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's a shame these won't be coming to the states. I wonder how much it would cost anyway.
- CDHarrisUSF, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Just what we need though a bunch of speed racers drivin around mini hindenburgs."
... not if the hydrogen is stored in a metal hydride which absorbs hydrogen gas like a sponge, as pioneered by Stanford Ovshinsky and his wife at ECD Ovonics. Their method stores it in a stable, solid form which can be filled at low pressures. Another of their inventions is a cheap, flexible, efficient solar panel that is rugged enough to survive having holes drilled through it. Check out their company's site (particularly the videos on the profile page):
http://www.ovonic.com/our_company/1_1_coprofile/company_profile.htm - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Finnally, petrol sucks !
- Gigadafud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0what is the unit that hydrogen is measured by? liters, cubic liters......
and how many miles/kilometers per unit do these cars get?
i can never find either of these two out. - speedyrev, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm all for leaving petro, but doesn't it take more BTU's to make hydrogen that hydrogen can produce?
- Substance134, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm all for fuel cell vehicles but is the technology ready for use by the general public? So I would be very skeptical about this one.
- Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Ah. . . and their first market: iceland. Way to go.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That was a Lexus in Minority Report ;)
- mrgreen4242, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Currently, it still takes FAR MORE ENERGY to create hydrogen fuel than it does to create gasoline. Yeap, that means we burn more coal (since the US is so opposed to wonderfully safe & clean nuclear power) to make the hydrogen fuel than we do gasoline running our cars. That also means there is more pollution and we add to current greenhouse effects. Also, hydrogen is still burned, so we are still adding more heat introduced to environment.
My point: this is not the solution. Research for fusion reactors, better battery technology, and higher efficiency vehicles that weigh less are the answer."
Well, I'm not disagreeing with you, but in this case the hydrogen comes (mainly) from natural gas, not electricty generated, on average 50% with coal. I haven't seen any numbers that show hom many cubic feet of natural gas it takes to make a "full tank" of hydrogen, and then how far that will get you, so you could then figure out a per mile fuel fee, to see if it is any 'better' than regular old gas.
I still want my electric car. :( - cmos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0looks like on page three there is the default windows xp wallpaper. or i'm just losing my mind
- Calculon64, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Looks like a Lambo crossed with an Intrepid.
- osbjmg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@repler - Mind the details, God is in the details. Just reading and complaining about headlines is masturbatory.
- covrigel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0what, max speed 93 MPH? That means u probably will never reach it, so u have to floor it on the freeway to get to 75 LOL
- lucas911993, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Currently, it still takes FAR MORE ENERGY to create hydrogen fuel than it does to create gasoline. Yeap, that means we burn more coal (since the US is so opposed to wonderfully safe & clean nuclear power) to make the hydrogen fuel than we do gasoline running our cars. That also means there is more pollution and we add to current greenhouse effects. Also, hydrogen is still burned, so we are still adding more heat introduced to environment.
My point: this is not the solution. Research for fusion reactors, better battery technology, and higher efficiency vehicles that weigh less are the answer. - aggies11, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Does anyone else, *really* want this car? Alternative energy source + Reasonable mileage (500km) + It looks like a European sports car = I must have this thing.
It's a step in the right direction, too bad it will be crazy expensive and not available to the common person :(
Aggies - roadtrippy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Looks like it's running Windows XP. Insert the 'crash' and 'BSOD' jokes now, haha.
Seriously though, the HES is a good idea that might give the needed kickstart to widespread adoption. Although, I'm guessing most people would need to keep a gas vehicle around for long trips where a hydrogen supply might not be available. It's a good start though. - floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I wonder how long it will before we start whining about the evil hydrogen co. raising prices
- sandwichpants, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Ford, GM, Honda, Toyota, Mazda and possibly more already make hydrogen cars (fuel cell and internal combustion). The thing is, hydrogen storage, in practice, sucks so far. There are a lot of promising technologies on the horizon for it, they are not yet implemented, and one has to be chosen and implemented into major infrastructure before these vehicles matter at all.
And, keep in mind for the time being, the greatest source of hydrogen in production is from fossil fuels, so we're not really helping much yet. But that's the point of research, taking technologies that don't work great yet, seeing the potential for improvement, and then making it work. - Reddog_x2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's a start.
- drpsycho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Forget this... I want my Mr. Fusion!
- seandfeeney, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0ok so it is going to go into production but when? when will it be available? any predictions?
- compressedaudio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I applaud Honda. Well done!
- GigaViking, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is PIMP. I'm hounding Honda dealers to get me on a reserve list now.
- andreo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's about time. I've been waiting for fuelcell technology to come to the general public for years. I tried like hell to get in on the fuelcell beta for the home from a company called plug power. If this comes out in the states in the next couple of years I know what car I will be buying next.
- deathguppie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I actually RTFA, and from what I could see it looks like the big american auto manufacturers are about to get their collective asses handed to them.
Ford and GM need to make a turn around, and quick if they want to survive. - Zzzzzz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Thanks for the reality check that some of the folks here need, mrgreen. Hydrogen fuel-cells is not the solution yet, as it is just basically another eenergy storage technology, not an energy source. It is still grossly inefficient to produce. Hybrids aren't the answer either since they don't do any better than a regular diesel of the same size (in reality)
Not only that, according to Popular Mechanics the hybrids don't get nearly the gas-miledge that the EPA claims. In fact the EPA openly admits that their tests are in error. The actual numbers are off (exaggerated) by 15-20%!
I think the future lies in solar energy in the form of vegetable oil and ethanol. In fact, one of my coworkers hasn't bought a tank of diesel in a year! He runs used oil (free) from deep fryers and just starts his truck with diesel.
I'm not saying used vegetable oil is the way to go, but a gallon of VO is almost the same price as a gallon of diesel now, and you get the same miledge with it! - wackedoutgeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Great, just what people need. Hundreds of Hindenburg's on wheels driven by drunken 16 years old.
- MrKite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'd hate to get into a head-on crash in that thing. OTOH, I hate that in any car, but man, look at that front-end.
- sremick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I digg it. Hot car, and hydrogen beats hybrids. Yes, I know hydrogen takes more energy to produce than gasoline, AND that most hydrogen is produced from oil. HOWEVER... oil isn't the ONLY way to produce hydrogen, and once we have a hydrogen infrastructure starting to form then it'll be even more cost-effective to invest in alternate means to produce it. Hydrogen could become a generic carrier, like electricity: multiple ways to produce, multiple ways to consume. A common energy currency. At the moment, we don't have ways to "make" gasoline (biodiesel aside... but it's damn hard to buy new diesel cars here in the USA, everything is gasoline. And producing biodiesel is complicated as well as burning it, as it seems to gum up a lot of engines. Hydrogen on the other hand is clean, simple, and modern)
- charlescheese, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Absolutely awesome
- xeigen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@covrigel - 93MPH is the OLD FCX, not this new one?
- Deuterium, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Screw this eco-crap, the sky is falling, psudo-science, calcium deficient, Vegan, BS. You can have my V-8 internal combustion GASOLINE engine when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.
- PostedOval, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wow...it's gorgeous. I want one.
-
Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 