Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Honda rolls out new zero-emission car

TOMOKO A. HOSAKA

The Associated Press

Latest comment posted at 5:42 PM EST 17/06/08

Hollywood is abuzz over the hydrogen-fuelled vehicle ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Bob Van Derlay from Canada writes: I see that one problem is the "dearth of hydrogen fuel stations". Another problem could be the dearth of hydrogen.
  2. Andrew S from Canada writes: If Honda is able to do this, why can't Ford or GM? Wait, because GM and Ford lack the strategy and innovation to build such a product.
  3. Cycling Commuter from Canada writes: Plug-in hybrids are much more efficient than hydrogen vehicles. This is mostly due to significant energy losses incurred in producing and distributing hydrogen.

    Plug-in hybrids with quick-swap battery packs are being developed by Nissan-Renault for use in Denmark and Israel.

    See a detailed explanation of the issues here: http://tinyurl.com/2vnmls
  4. Doc B from Canada writes: Actually Andrew GM already has 100 fuel cell powered Chevy Equinox vehicles on the road. These vehicles were on the road last year, and built right here in Canada (Oshawa). While GM are an easy target for producing gas guzzling trucks and vehicles that 'nobody wants to buy', they have been investing in green technology including fuel cells for many years and they spend as much as anyone on R & D.

    http://www.wheels.ca/Trends/article/124215

    theglobeandmail.com?query=

    As for Ford, they had a fleet of about 30 fuel cell powered Focus cars on the road a few years ago. They are also working on a Ford Edge fuel cell hybrid.
  5. Gold Standard from Canada writes: What a waste..hydrogen cars:)
  6. Ontario Man from Canada writes: There is no such thing as a zero emissions car, this is just a nice piece of fluffy propaganda.

    How exactly is the hydrogen going to be produced?
  7. CallofDuty . from Toronto, Canada writes: I can't wait! Once they have these on the market, they will obviously improve the technology as time goes buy. No more gas stations….YOOHOOO!
  8. The Blind Man Is King from Canada writes: Typical North American environmental activism - You get a nice puff piece on a new fuel cell car and before they even go into the technology, they let you know which has-been film star will be driving it.
  9. bruce desjardins from Windsor, Canada writes: In california only 46 percent of electricity comes from nuclear or renewable sources. Hydrogen produced there would be 54 % produced from coal/natural gas, making plug-ins or hydrogen vehicles run essentially more than half on those fuels.
    How much per mile does it cost to run on Hydrogen now? A lot, I bet.
    The hydrogen is sourced from water, I believe. Will water become the new scarce commodity if hydrogen is ever the new fuel source?
  10. Jack F from Canada writes: Bob Vanderlay writes: "Another problem could be the dearth of hydrogen. "

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought one of the benefits of hydrogen powered vehicles is that hydrogen is, in fact, the most plentiful substance in the universe.
  11. Christopher Kiely from Canada writes: Jack F from Canada writes: Bob Vanderlay writes: "Another problem could be the dearth of hydrogen. "

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought one of the benefits of hydrogen powered vehicles is that hydrogen is, in fact, the most plentiful substance in the universe.
    _______________________________________________________

    Nice misquote there Jack.

    Bob said "... dearth of hydrogen stations." not a shortage of the substance itself. But you already knew that didn't you?

    Can anyone on here debate an issue without throwing mud in the water???
  12. Matt C from Canada writes: It may be the most plentiful, but you can't leave a bucket out overnight and wake up with it filled with pure hydrogen.

    Hydrogen has to be extracted from a source and the likely source for that hydrogen is water. Extraction takes energy, transport takes energy, driving to a hydrogen station to refuel takes energy. Demand for water resources to create hydrogen will only strain already strained supplies for domestic use, hydro electricity, agriculture, and natural requirements.

    Yes electric vehicles will also face the same issues but at least the electricity can come from other sources like nuclear or a coal plant (still better than 500,000 individual car engines) and the necessary infrastructure is essentially already there.

    Hydrogen cars like this Honda are cool and all, but those companies that have invested in hydrogen better hope battery technology doesn't catch by the time hydrogen becomes economical on a large scale. I also think it's ridiculous that you'll still have to go to a hydrogen station to fill up. Wouldn't everyone rather just plug in their cars overnight?

    The article doesn't mention how much the car would cost to buy. Rest assured it's probably 3x that of a Prius.
  13. Peter Wojnar from Hamilton, Canada writes: So what fuel are they using to create the hydrogen?

    How much of this fuel do they need? How much does it pollute? How much GHG does it create?

    Hydrogen is very difficult to create, you don't get it for free.
  14. Christopher Kiely from Canada writes: Matt C from Canada writes: "Hydrogen cars like this Honda are cool and all, but those companies that have invested in hydrogen better hope battery technology doesn't catch by the time hydrogen becomes economical on a large scale. I also think it's ridiculous that you'll still have to go to a hydrogen station to fill up. Wouldn't everyone rather just plug in their cars overnight?"

    _______________________________________________________

    Excellent point Matt, but with LiOn batteries still blowing up in people's laptops I think both technologies have their work cut out for them.
  15. Another Opinion from Canada writes: For Christopher Kiely: "Bob said "... dearth of hydrogen stations." not a shortage of the substance itself. But you already knew that didn't you?

    Can anyone on here debate an issue without throwing mud in the water???"

    Actually Christopher, not to muddy the water or anything, but Jack F had quoted Bob correctly if you'll read his original post again. I'll copy the entire thing for you:

    "I see that one problem is the "dearth of hydrogen fuel stations". Another problem could be the dearth of hydrogen."
  16. A READER from TORONTO, Canada writes: Wouldn't it be nice if they could just fill the car with water. Couldn't a solar panel on the car take care of creating the hydrogen needed? Not sure if that will be sufficient to power the car for extended distances.

    Down the road, maybe people would have their own portable hydrogen gas bar at home to refill their car. More competition for gas stations.

    In the mean time, why can't dealerships selling hydrogen vehicles also open up a hydrogen refill station? There're always car dealerships in almost every city/town.
  17. andy c from Canada writes: i like fuel effecient cars as much as the next guy but geez, quite a bit of pub for something that amounts to a glorified test run involving celeberties. as other posters have pointed out most major car companies are doing similar real world tests in north america.
  18. SoTiredoftheBS inTO from Canada writes: Even though this might be a great technology it is years away from large scale availability. There is hardly any E85 Ethanol stations in the US and only a couple in all of Canada (funny that didn't stop Jim Flarety from giving a $2000.00 rebate for vehicles that you can't buy fuel for). Wide spread hydrogen stations aren't coming anytime soon.
    The high cost of even hybrids make them a money losing proposition for most buyers. You will spend more on the vehicle, higher lease, insurance and depreciation costs than you will save in gas. DO the planet a fovour and plant some trees,they'l take care your your higher carbon footprint.
  19. Alberta Green from Canada writes: No matter how you look at it, producing hydrogen from water is an energy sink. If you don't understand this concept, please mail me ten dollars and I'll send you back a dollar.
  20. D Stuff from Toronto, Canada writes: How about just giving us an affordable hybrid? One that isn't 50-100% more expensive than a conventional compact car!
  21. CallofDuty . from Toronto, Canada writes: After reading some of the posters comments of how hard hydrogen power will be drive our future cars. It's no wonder the North American cat makers suck. It's all "can't do this, can't do that, it's too hard"

    Japanese thinking is, yes we can and we will.
  22. B to the A to the R to the T from the left coast, Canada writes: SoTiredoftheBS inTO from Canada writes: The high cost of even hybrids make them a money losing proposition for most buyers.
    ______________________________________________________
    Another pessimist who types without verifying facts and not doing the math. A Civic hybrid pays for itself with 3 yrs compared to the standard civic. On top of that insurance on hybrids is LESS not more than conventional cars.

    Thanks for the FUD but it's just BS.
  23. Alberta Green from Canada writes: No matter how you look at it hydrogen does not exist anywhere on earth. Hydrogen has to be extracted or manufactured and there lies the problem, it always takes more energy to extract hydrogen than the energy hydrogen will produce.
    Storing hydrogen in a car is considered by most insurance companies as a hazard they prefer not to cover. If there was a hydrogen leak in a enclosed space all it would take to ignite would be a small static spark.
    Hydrogen if accidentally released into the air would do damage to the ozone layer.
    Hydrogen is the least dense fuel known to mankind, meaning you would need a very very large tank to travel any distance unless you liquefied hydrogen at a great energy cost bringing it's temp to -425F.
    You could write a book and people have as to why hydrogen is the most environmentally damaging fuel we can manufacture to bad all most people see is how clean a fuel it is to use in it's final state.
  24. Another Opinion from Toronto, Canada writes: For Alberta Green: Not to annoy you, because you seem like a pretty irritable person already, but may I ask a question?

    If hydrogen is so impossibly difficult to produce, store, transport and use, why are so many companies (including Honda) putting so much energy into developing hydrogen-based technology?

    I'm not questioning ANY of your data, because frankly I'm too busy to research it, but it doesn't make sense to me that a company like Honda would drop millions in R&D on something that is so obviously a dud.

    Let's face it: you're not saying this is not AS GOOD as other solutions. You're painting it as the granddaddy of bad ideas. So how come you can see it so cleary and a multi-billion dollar auto manufacturer with a long history of successful engineering and development can't see it?

    Is it even remotely possible that you're either overstating your case a little?
  25. Alberta Green from Canada writes: Another Opinion from Toronto, Canada writes: For Alberta Green: Not to annoy you, because you seem like a pretty irritable person already, but may I ask a question?

    Explain to me why Ballard Power has now spent more than 15 years researching the fuel cell but still has not produced a single cell that is affordable or last any period of time. Maybe take a little time to research into the viability of hydrogen. Your argument sounds like investing $10 in the stock market and you got $6 back is a winner. I bet you would have been the first person to buy a Stanley Steamer.
    Prove me wrong on one item instead of coming out with a blanket attack.
  26. Anti Elvis from Calgary, Alberta, Canada writes: What no one mentions is the metals used in the batteries & how long till they are all mined out ?

    As for the electricity used to create hydrogen, well that can come from a variety of sources including renewable sources. Gas comes from ... well gas. (well actually oil, but you know what I mean). It's a better option than gas powered vehicles.
  27. D Stuff from Canada writes: B to the A to the R to the T from the left coast, Canada writes: SoTiredoftheBS inTO from Canada writes: The high cost of even hybrids make them a money losing proposition for most buyers.
    ______________________________________________________
    Another pessimist who types without verifying facts and not doing the math. A Civic hybrid pays for itself with 3 yrs compared to the standard civic. On top of that insurance on hybrids is LESS not more than conventional cars.

    Thanks for the FUD but it's just BS.

    ========================

    You are quite wrong about the above stats. It would take about 18 years to recover the cost difference in MSRP between a Civic Sedan and a Civic Hybrid. I have done the math using GofC fuel economy stats, and I agree that it makes no sense for the average cash starved consumer to buy a Hybrid at today's prices regardless of how green conscious they are. The car will wear out long before the fuel savings ever balance out with the premium price of the car. If you drive around 20K per year, 50% on the hwy, the Hybrid may save you $500 a year, but the car cost an extra $10K.
  28. Another Opinion from Toronto, Canada writes: For Alberta Green: "Prove me wrong on one item instead of coming out with a blanket attack."

    A blanket attack?

    "Is it even remotely possible that you're either overstating your case a little?"

    You consider THAT a blanket attack? I didn't question your facts. I didn't call you names. I didn't even say you were wrong. I simply asked if you might be overstating a bit, and that's your idea of an attack?

    Here's an attack:

    If I had a choice between listening to some paranoid loudmouth and a company famous for its engineering prowess who has flushed better ideas than you'll ever have on your best day, I'm sorry to say you lose buddy.

    Now THAT is an attack.

    Smarten up, big guy. I asked a simple question and you go postal. Given the circumstances, I think it's a valid question. By the way, you never answered it.

    People would buy hydrogen cars for the hype. I get that.

    My question is why would a company that has built its reputation on quality engineering and design build and market a car that's a complete dud if that fact is so obvious to everyone?

    Incidentally, what's a Stanley Steamer?
  29. Emilio Garazgos from Kanata, Canada writes: For the Brown Wet Blankets here who have been asking how and where will the hydrogen come from, two years ago, a professor from UNM drove his hydrogen-powered vehicle to a teaching workshop being held on my friend's ranch down there, the energy to produce the hydrogen from water coming from a PV panel.

    For those who suggest that plug-in electrics are preferable, perhaps you might have a closer look at how that electricity if generated (ie coal and nuke) and the appalling transmission losses that are inherent in the infrastructure delivering that electricty to the outlet into.

    And for thos who asked why can't someone invent a car that runs on water. Someone has. The Japanese.
    http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_23767.aspx
  30. A READER from TORONTO, Canada writes: Emilio, wouldn't you say that your professor invented a car that runs on water?

    ---
    Emilio Garazgos from Kanata, Canada writes: For the Brown Wet Blankets here who have been asking how and where will the hydrogen come from, two years ago, a professor from UNM drove his hydrogen-powered vehicle to a teaching workshop being held on my friend's ranch down there, the energy to produce the hydrogen from water coming from a PV panel.

    For those who suggest that plug-in electrics are preferable, perhaps you might have a closer look at how that electricity if generated (ie coal and nuke) and the appalling transmission losses that are inherent in the infrastructure delivering that electricty to the outlet into.

    And for thos who asked why can't someone invent a car that runs on water. Someone has. The Japanese.
    http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_23767.aspx
  31. David J. Parker from Tar Sandsopolis, Canada writes: Here they come, ZEVs gallore.
    Watch out big three, you think times have got tough for you SUV dependents.
    You ain't seen nothing yet.
    Get on board or die.
  32. Alberta Green from Canada writes: Incidentally, what's a Stanley Steamer?

    Might try to use this great tool called Google, oh yea sorry as you said "because frankly I'm too busy to research it".
  33. Keitl Gilbert from Canada writes: I would hardly call this a roll-out of a new vehicle. More like a showing of a concept car, since it's distribution is so limited geographically.

    I would like to have an hydrogen fuel-cell car, when they get the fuel station problem solved, and only if we do not have to use oil/gas products to generate hydrogen, whether as raw material or as an energy source.
  34. B to the A to the R to the T from the left coast, Canada writes: D Stuff unforunately you are wrong because you over simplified your assumptions and calculations As each of us knows GofC caluclations are not real world examples, do you get the advertised mileage on your car? This year the US EPA changed the way they calculate fuel economy. At $1.48/L (it's 1.489 here today) on 20000 Km the redular civic burns $702 more per year according to http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm. According to Honda Canada a Civic hybrid with A/C and Auto: MSRP: 26,350.00 Freight & PDI: 1,295.00 Taxes and Levies:3,593.85 Price: $31,238.85 Minus ECOAuto: 29,238.85 Minus BC PST Rebate: $27,238.85 In BC if you trade in a 1993 or older vehicle you'll get a further $2000 a hybrid:$25,238.85 According to Honda Canada Civic DX with A/C and Auto: MSRP: $19,490.00 Freight & PDI: 1,295.00 Taxes and Levies:$2,702.05 Price: $23,487.05 No rebates available. So the price difference is $3,751.80 or $1751.80 with pre 1993 trade in ...you save $700 in fuel costs per year at todays prices and $950 if prices clime to a more European $2/L. If you factor taking to consideration hybrid insurance savings and available hybrid financing rebates from places like CDI and Vancity, hybrids pay for themselves in very quick order.
  35. s like from Canada writes: Can't wait ti'll they come out with a hydrogen Hummer....
  36. B to the A to the R to the T from the left coast, Canada writes: s like...a the governator has a Hydrogen Hummer.
  37. Carl White from Canada writes: Regard battery technology: I have high hopes for a supercapacitor being readied for production by a little-known company named EEStor. Holds a lot of power, can be discharged and recharged a million times without loss of function, and can be fully charged in as little as five minutes!!

    Better still, Zenn Motor, an electric vehicle company based in Ontario and Quebec, has an exclusive license to their product!
  38. Toxic Planet from dead earth, Canada writes: Ever drive a hydrogen car in a raging blizzard at minus 25 C? ever drive a hydrogen car to work everyday in winter weeks on end at minus 25C?
  39. Tiu Leek from T.O, Canada writes: "Hydrogen is very difficult to create, you don't get it for free. "

    To create hydrogen, do the following.

    1. Buy a battery.
    2. Buy a glass of water.
    3. Stick the battery in the water.
    4. Collect the hydrogen.

    ....

    Creating hydrogen is dead easy through electrolysis. I can remember my high school physics teacher doing it as a demonstration.

    The problem is that as a process, electrolysis is only 70% efficient. Meaning, it takes more electrical energy to produce hydrogen then you'd get if you just used the electricity directly.
  40. D Stuff from Canada writes: B to the A to the R to the T from the left coast, Canada writes: D Stuff unforunately you are wrong because you over simplified your assumptions and calculations As each of us knows GofC caluclations are not real world examples, do you get the advertised mileage on your car?

    =============

    As a matter of fact I do get the tested fuel economy! You may not believe those stats, but on my Echo I get both the hwy and city economy within a couple tenths of a point. Unless as you say the stats are wrong, from a fuel economy point of view the Hybrids are not worth the premium price. They are great if you can afford them and it makes you feel good to fill up less often, and makes you feel like you are making a difference for the environment, but the price just does not compute.
  41. Tiu Leek from T.O, Canada writes: "For those who suggest that plug-in electrics are preferable, perhaps you might have a closer look at how that electricity if generated (ie coal and nuke) and the appalling transmission losses that are inherent in the infrastructure delivering that electricty to the outlet into."

    Well, it depends on what you're plugging into. If you're plugging into a PV panel, it's still going to be more efficient than using that energy to convert water to hydrogen.
  42. Alberta Green from Canada writes: Tiu Leek from T.O, Canada writes: "Hydrogen is very difficult to create, you don't get it for free. "

    To create hydrogen, do the following.

    1. Buy a battery.
    2. Buy a glass of water.
    3. Stick the battery in the water.
    4. Collect the hydrogen.

    You're 100% right, now how do you create enough hydrogen to power 100,000 cars.
  43. Tiu Leek from T.O, Canada writes: "No matter how you look at it hydrogen does not exist anywhere on earth. "

    Except, of course, water. Or H20, for you techno geeks out there.

    Hydrogen doesn't exist in a free state on earth, but it sure does partnered with other elements. Life can't exist without hydrogen.

    "Hydrogen has to be extracted or manufactured and there lies the problem, it always takes more energy to extract hydrogen than the energy hydrogen will produce. "

    Ah, those tricky laws of thermodynamics again.

    Yes, it does take more energy to create hydrogen from water than you get back from combusting it, but so what? That's life.

    The point is that if you get the energy from a free source, like say the giant fusion reactor we're currently orbiting, then you're still ahead of the game.

    At that point, it's all about the relative efficiencies of using hydrogen as a fuel to the efficiencies of electrical battery storage.
  44. Tiu Leek from T.O, Canada writes: "You're 100% right, now how do you create enough hydrogen to power 100,000 cars. "

    Ultimately? The sun. Same thing that's powering almost every living thing on earth.
  45. Alberta Green from Canada writes: Honda makes a car that runs on natural gas(methane) that sells in the US for under 25,000.00. Pollutes less than a gas powered car, can be refueled in your garage for less than a 1/4 the price of gas with a refueller that can be installed for under $2000.00. You can also in a short period of time build refueling stations as natural gas is piped to most areas of Canada and the US. Natural gas can also be trucked or shipped in liquid form to anywhere. The world has a larger supply of methane than it does of gas.
    I would guess that it may not be as sexy as hydrogen.
    http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-gx/
  46. B to the A to the R to the T from the left coast, Canada writes: D Stuff... even if you use Gov't of canada fuel economy stats and today's prices. The cost savings is still in the $700/yr. ...My calculations ($2072 for the DX[8.2L and 5.7L/100km] vs. $1332 for the hybrid [4.7 and 4.2L/100km] over 20K km/yr). You assumption that buying a hybrid does not compute financially is plain wrong.
  47. Alberta Green from Canada writes: Tiu Leek from T.O, Canada writes:
    Ultimately? The sun. Same thing that's powering almost every living thing on earth.

    Would it not make more sense to use all that energy and pollution you will create to build this solar grid to charge battery driven cars that will be less than a 1/2 the price to build versus a hydrogen powered car. It is also a technology we have available today and with better batteries have a longer range than hydrogen powered vehicles.
  48. D Wiatzka from Canada writes: "Zero" emissions only if you discount the fact that the hydrogen was extracted from natural gas and the electricity usually comes from burning coal and natural gas... ;o)

    I'd love for us to use hydrogen as our energy system's "currency" but in order to do so we'd have to generate enormous amounts of electricity which we could only do without GHGs by using a significant amount of nuclear power.

    Unfortunately that will not happen due to fears regarding nuclear technology and fear of weapons proliferation.
  49. George Khan from Suburbia, Canada writes: I love driving cars and I love techno-gadgets (i.e. hybrids, H-powered, etc.) as much as anyone; having said that, I don't think any current or emerging car technology would be sustainable. To make a car, lots of stuff and energy are consumed, and it will still create a huge environmental issue when that car gets eventually disposed. The increasing numbers of cars on the roads (no matter if they are all zero-emissions), will still create a world of gridlocks, less liveable for everone.
    In my opinion, nations (specially USA and Canada) should seriously overhaul their public transit systems and slow down and eventually stop the urban sprawl (people would then tend to use less the car just to commute); that would be a big step in the right direction.
  50. Peter Wojnar from Hamilton, Canada writes: >>You're 100% right, now how do you create enough hydrogen to power 100,000 cars.

    You'll need a lot of glasses of water. Hope nobody is thirsty...
  51. Peter Wojnar from Hamilton, Canada writes: >>Andrew S from Canada writes: If Honda is able to do this, why can't Ford or GM? Wait, because GM and Ford lack the strategy and innovation to build such a product.

    Or perhaps it's because Ford and GM don't have sufficient funds to pay for this kind of research after they pay their $75/hour union labour.

    $75/hour may be great.....for a select few that is. But keep in mind that there is a price to pay for everything. Lack of R&D may be the price we are paying here.
  52. A Canadian from Cole Harbour, Canada writes: B to the A to the R to the T from the left coast, Canada writes: D Stuff... even if you use Gov't of canada fuel economy stats and today's prices. The cost savings is still in the $700/yr. ...My calculations ($2072 for the DX[8.2L and 5.7L/100km] vs. $1332 for the hybrid [4.7 and 4.2L/100km] over 20K km/yr). You assumption that buying a hybrid does not compute financially is plain wrong.
    *************
    The problem is that you assume the mileage as indicated by Honda for hybrid are 100% correct which they are not. Actual fuel economy for hybrid Honda Civic go be as low as 4.6 and as high as 7.4 compared to 5.88 to 7.4 for regular gas engine.

    Check out http://www.truedelta.com for real-world mileage as reported by people that drives those type of vehicles. I have read somewhere that most people are disappointed with the lack of saving.
  53. Rain Couver from Canada writes: Ballard has been working on hydrogen fuel cells for over a decade. The reason they are not already on every vehicle was that to create hydrogen in the form that is necessary took significantly more energy and processing than gas. Also, there was no way of making hydrogen cost effective as well.

    I admit, to find alternative fuel sources is laudable and I will celebrate the day we can create affordable transportation that does not rely on oil from the middle beast, these alternatives cannot be only affordable to the rich and famous. Also, as someone was asking earlier, GM is going to create the first all electric vehicle in 2010. Not that I would trust GM to build anything worthwhile, it might force other manufacturers to provide alternatives as well.
  54. James Fehr from Winnipeg, writes: "Toyota announced in May that it has sold more than 1 million Prius hybrids, while both the Honda Insight and the hybrid Accord have been discontinued due to poor sales."

    Excuse me, author, do you not know that Honda has been selling the Civic Hybrid for a number of years already? You leave us with the misconception that all Honda's hybrids are flops. Get with it, please.
  55. Alberta Green from Canada writes: GM and Ford have both put large sums of money into Ballard. If the American automakers can find a way to keep there large trucks and SUV's on the road they would spend billions on a viable technology that would keep their very profitable large vehicle sales alive. The biggest problem facing the automakers is finding a way to build a refueling system for hydrogen. No one is willing to spend the ten's of billions required as there is no guarantee that hydrogen technology will advance to a state where it becomes economically viable. That means the government will have to build these stations and so far no government anywhere in the world is willing to take the risk except California and few European countries who have built a handful of experimental stations. I think the value of Ballard stock today speaks to the future of hydrogen as after after all this time no one has ever proposed a takeover of Ballard Power. I would think if the big three saw a future in hydrogen they would of taken over control of Ballard years ago.
  56. Sweeney Todd from Oilberta, Canada writes: "Hollywood is abuzz..." Well, isn't that just the good housekeeping seal of approval? People who make $20 million for two hours of on-screen crap that goes straight to DVD, just LOVE this new toy. 'Cause that's all it is.

    It takes more energy to separate hydrogen, than you get back out of it. And that is a stone-cold engineering/economic fact.

    I watch how my neighbours store & handle gasoline for their lawnmowers, snowmobiles, ATVs, etc. Not much short of terrifying. Hydrogen is explosive over a HUGE range of it's mixture with air, and makes gasoline and natural gas look like tap water. The molecules are so small, that they will permeate steel pipe & tanks. And it can self-ignite after doing so. You can't SEE the flames in daylight. You have to go out at night, and look for the leaks. That's the only time you can see them.

    Oh ya - bring on hydrogen fueled vehicles... I CAN'T WAIT! :(
  57. Kidder Frugal from Outskirts of Railton, Canada writes: Been getting to work on my zero-emissions vehicle since he snow dried up. It's called a bicycle, and I save the cost of gym membership to boot!

    I'll quote somebody I saw on discussion on the G&M site some months ago, you can take credit if you wish: "It's hard to find a sustainable way of living unsustainably".

    Lose the car and use your legs.
  58. Alastair james Berry from NANAIMO BC, Canada writes: OUT HERE IN SUPERNATURAL B.C. ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE! About 1986 a company, BALLARD, was going to produce pollution free cars....Everybody was excited as California had mandared that 25% of all cars in that state were to be POLLUTION FREE by 1998(or that is how I remember it) Well as you can imagine great excitement Ballard was mooting HYDROGEN FUELLED CARS!! Ontario got in on the HYPE....ONTARIO would harvest Hydrogen from Lake Ontario and LEAD THE WORLD into the Hydrogen Economy of the FUTURE (on so Ont Energy Minister Welch opined). OK So what happened? Billions of taxpayers money was POURED INTO BOTH PROJECTS..............CANADA proving that it lead the world in advanced technology, .don't you know? Well Ballard finally produced a car and a bus that functioned better than anybody could imagine............MORE GOVERNMENT GRANTS WERE POURED IN.............AND BALLARD SHARES GOT TO ABOUT $200 !!! News releases day after day......Politicians had a field day with photo ops!! AND MORE TAXPAYERS MONEY POURED IN!! Then things went quieter....REPORTERS were not let into the works BEHIND THE SECRET GREEN DOOR!!!! and then the announcement BALLARD was going out of the FUEL CELLS for transport business AND THE $200 shares collapsed to $4.50!!.........Horror of horrors........so Ballard will produce a few buses for the OLYMPICS and that will be it!!(except for tiny stand by generators of 1 or 2 KW!!!!!! and perhaps a few units to power forklifts in unique conditions) AND ALL THE TAXPAYERS MONEY HAS VANISHED AND THE ORIGINAL PROMOTERS HAVE VANISHED TOO!(or so it seems from Nanaimo)
  59. Hydro Glen from United States writes: Saw a review of the Honda Clarity FCX on Edmunds.com. http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=123662 To quote Edmunds..."Honda won't be selling the Clarity, at least not in this initial iteration, because it is largely hand-assembled and stuffed with hideously expensive technology. The company won't discuss the cost of each vehicle, but nobody on the Clarity team blinks when it's suggested that Honda would have to charge at least $1 million apiece just to break even on the immediate production costs. "
  60. Cycling Commuter from Canada writes:

    Emilio Garazgos writes:

    "...from a PV panel."

    Plug-in hybrids can also be recharged from photvoltaic panels too. See www.solarelectricalvehicles.com

    "...appalling transmission losses that are inherent in the infrastructure delivering that electricity to the outlet into."

    Any transmission losses that apply to plug-in hybrids also apply to hydrogen that is created through a hydrolysis system that is near point of use. Electricity grid transmission and distribution losses of around 6-8% are typical in OECD countries.

    Electricity-to-wheel efficiency of plug-in hybrids in electric mode is 69% vs under 30% for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.

    Plug-in efficiency: Distribution 92%; charger 89%; Li-Ion battery 94%; electric drive 89%. Hydrogen efficiency: H2 production 80%; transport 95%; fuel cell 54%; electric drive 89%.

    See detailed refs at http://tinyurl.com/2vnmls

    A plug-in hybrid could use a battery for short trips and a small fuel cell for average power requirements on a long trip with the battery covering peak power requirements. This would be more efficient than using an internal combustion engine on long trips. Sizing the fuel cell to meet average rather than peak power needs will reduce fuel cell costs.

    If the production cost for ultracapacitors is brought down, they'll displace both fuel cells and batteries. Ultracapacitors charge faster than batteries, they can handle more charge-discharge cycles, and they are far more efficient than fuel cells.

    Buying any kind of a full hybrid acts as a form of insurance. If fuel prices continue to rise, then quick-swappable battery capacity can be added later to turn it into a plug-in hybrid. PV panels can be added on vehicle and house rooftops for recharging. As battery/ultracapacitor technologies improve, the hybrid battery pack can be upgraded without replacing the entire vehicle.
  61. Matt C from Canada writes: No matter how efficient you make the hydrogen drive-train on the electric vehicle, you need enough energy to move a 1100 Kg mass of metal. Even if the entire process from energy capture to the wheels on the ground was 100% efficient, that's a lot of energy. Multiplied by the hundreds of millions of cars in the world and I think we have a problem hydrogen and electricity won't solve.

    It's time for a cultural shift away from the automobile. Anything else is a pipe dream.
  62. Paul Sallmen from Burnaby, BC, writes: Alastair james Berry from NANAIMO BC, Canada writes: "...AND ALL THE TAXPAYERS MONEY HAS VANISHED AND THE ORIGINAL PROMOTERS HAVE VANISHED TOO!(or so it seems from Nanaimo)"

    This is why I kind of question government subsidizing business like this. Sure, have environmental legislation like "minimum fuel economy of 7 L/100 km by 2015" or "5% Battery electric vehicles by 2015", but just let the car manufacturers figure out how to achieve this.

    I also tend to agree with many posters here about the viability of hydrogen. As many have pointed out, it is very, very reactive, hard to store, and although it is a common element, it is almost non-existent in its elemental form, H2.

    Really I think batteries are the way to go. Do a little research: Chevrolet Volt, Plug-in Prius, Th!nk cars, Mitsubishi iMiev, Subaru R1e, Zenn cars, Nissan electric by 2010. And with Peak Oil and ever increasing gas prices, they are inevitable.

    However, George Khan from Suburbia, Canada, hits the nail on head when he says that "in my opinion, nations (specially USA and Canada) should seriously overhaul their public transit systems and slow down and eventually stop the urban sprawl (people would then tend to use less the car just to commute)". Really cities need to be built around walking and bicycling to work, shop and play. The car should be something one drives once a week for a weekend trip. Perhaps the government could give tax credits to cities that start dismantling their strip malls, four-lane highways and concrete parking lots!
  63. Paul Sallmen from Burnaby, BC, writes: Alastair james Berry from NANAIMO BC, Canada writes: "...AND ALL THE TAXPAYERS MONEY HAS VANISHED AND THE ORIGINAL PROMOTERS HAVE VANISHED TOO!(or so it seems from Nanaimo)"

    This is why I kind of question government subsidizing business like this. Sure, have environmental legislation like "minimum fuel economy of 7 L/100 km by 2015" or "5% Battery electric vehicles by 2015", but just let the car manufacturers figure out how to achieve this.

    I also tend to agree with many posters here about the viability of hydrogen. As many have pointed out, it is very, very reactive, hard to store, and although it is a common element, it is almost non-existent in its elemental form, H2.

    Really I think batteries are the way to go. Do a little research: Chevrolet Volt, Plug-in Prius, Th!nk cars, Mitsubishi iMiev, Subaru R1e, Zenn cars, Nissan electric by 2010. And with Peak Oil and ever increasing gas prices, they are inevitable.

    However, George Khan from Suburbia, Canada, hits the nail on head when he says that "in my opinion, nations (specially USA and Canada) should seriously overhaul their public transit systems and slow down and eventually stop the urban sprawl (people would then tend to use less the car just to commute)". Really cities need to be built around walking and bicycling to work, shop and play. The car should be something one drives once a week for a weekend trip. Perhaps the government could give tax credits to cities that start dismantling their strip malls, four-lane highways and concrete parking lots!
  64. SoTiredoftheBS inTO from Canada writes: To: B to the A to the R to the T from the left coast, Canada, My information comes from an indepth comparison done in an article in the the Toronto Star Wheels section, www.wheels.ca/article/218938. Also I have friends whoare heartily disappointed with their real world gas mileage as compared to the advertised numbers, sometimes 25% less. Your experience in BC may be different as you seem to have more rebates than in Ontario. If you really want to save money and the planet check out the air powered car slated to come to North America in 2010-2012, http://zeropollutionmotors.us/.
  65. M Manion from Canada writes: First of all, I have to confess that I am impressed by the sharing of insights here - and particularly so that only a couple of uninformed posters jumped to bash GM and the domestic manufacturers.

    The FCX Clarity is very much like the Chevy Equinox Fuel Cell in that these are manufacturer-owned vehicles put in the hands of the public for the expressed purpose of deriving real-world data. These are still experimental vehicles and, as several posters have already pointed out, the fuel source and delivery infrastructure themselves remain problematic.

    And, yes, it takes more energy to produce and deliver hydrogen to a vehicle's tank than it will every produce in return but the same goes for virtually every portable power source. And yes, producing and transporting hydrogen with electricity means that fossil fuels (which partly generate our electricity) are used even with this technology. Again, of course, the generating stations have, on average, lower emissions and greater efficiency ratings than a car could manage.

    Not a perfect solution but not bad in the face of future challenges.

    But for those who jump at these stories to bash GM and expose anti-North American biases, I would suggest doing some research first about what's really going on out there.
  66. Cycling Commuter from Canada writes:

    SoTiredoftheBS writes:

    "...disappointed with their real world gas mileage as compared to the advertised numbers, sometimes 25% less."

    All vehicle types will achieve less than their advertised theoretical fuel economy when driven aggressively (accelerating toward a stop sign then braking heavily at the last second, etc). They will also achieve less than theoretical efficiency when driven in hilly areas. Extremely short trips will have negative impacts in many cases.

    Instead of looking at simplistic theoretical averages before making a buying choice, it's more rational to join a carsharing organization then use a variety of vehicles to carry out tests over the specific terrain you will be driving on. I always do this before buying a car - partly to see what real fuel economy will be with my specific lifestyle, partly to get a feel for seat comfort etc. on long trips. A 20-minute test drive combined with theoretical averages is just not good enough when making an expensive purchase decision.

    If you live in a hilly area and you're deciding between a hybrid or a gasoline-only vehicle, you will likely find that hybrid fuel economy is less than the stated average, but so is gasoline-only fuel economy. When this is translated into monthly dollar costs for both vehicle types, the hybrid savings will likely be higher and the payback period shorter not just in spite of less than theoretical economies, but because of them. It sounds counterintuitive until you think about it and do the math. If the hybrid requires 4.0 liters per km on flat terrain and the gas-only vehicle requires 6.0 liters per km, then you are saving 2 liters per km with the hybrid. If the hybrid requires 8.0 liters per km on hilly terrain and the gas-only vehicle requires 12.0 liters per km, then you are saving 4.0 liters per km with the hybrid and your payback period is more than cut in half once interest charges are considered.
  67. Cycling Commuter from Canada writes:

    Whoops, that should have been:

    If the hybrid theoretically requires 4.0 liters per 100 km on flat terrain and the gas-only vehicle theoretically requires 6.0 liters per 100 km, then you are theoretically saving 2 liters per 100 km with the hybrid.

    If the hybrid requires 8.0 liters per 100 km on hilly terrain in real life and the gas-only vehicle requires 12.0 liters per 100 km, then you are saving 4.0 liters per 100 km with the hybrid and your payback period is more than cut in half in real life compared to theory once interest charges are considered.

    12.0 liters per km is something you'd get out of a 1960s V8 on a short trip.

    Some countries state fuel economy as km per liter instead of liters per 100 km. I wish Canada did that. 25 km/liter is a lot tidier, half the length and less typo-prone than 4.0 liters per 100 km. Compare:

    25 km/liter
    4.0 liters per 100 km.

    It's also a cleaner transition from MPG. The bigger output number with km per liter compared to liters per 100 km is somehow more impressive.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.