Future murky for hydrogen-powered Clarity

The Honda FCX lease does not include the fuel, and since the fuel costs are similar, you'd be paying $600 a month plus the amount you now pay for gas - in other words, car payment plus gas plus gas!

If you haven't seen anyone else coming up with alternatives, you haven't been looking in the right places. There are plenty of EVs and Plug-in Hybrids under development, a few are available now, and more coming in 2009 and 2010.

As hydrogen-powered cars become available, we must continue the thinking and develop a "converter" for existing gasoline pumps, on every corner, and pump hydrogen instead of gasoline. Keep the service station owners in business by allowing them the option of converting to hydrogen stations by a to-be-designed system of extracting the hydrogen from water, with the emission of oxygen. Cars will also need the "converter" for the ability to "fire" cylinders with hydrogen rather than gasoline.

Is this far-fetched? In order to maintain our place in the world economy, we must figure out these "conversions" to use hydrogen to power our cars, trucks, trains, and planes. We have oceans of water for the extraction. Is there a way? If the technology can be developed, the infrastructure to deliver the fuel will follow. And we need to keep the commercial changes from gasoline to hydrogen as simple as possible, except for the dramatic change from dependence on petroleum.

Not a good idea to convert existing internal combustion engines to run on H2. The cost of conversion is high due to costly H2 storage tanks, in most cases the cost far exceeds the cost of the vehicle. H2 is an extremely bulky fuel, even with 10,000 psi pressure tanks it is difficult to pack enough on-board to get a decent driving range. The H2 fuel costs about twice as much as petroleum based fuels, doubling the operating costs.

Example. Quantum Technology converted a Toyota Prius to run on H2, at a cost of $80,000. Even with hybrid efficiency, the range per tank was a mere 80 miles, and in spite of an added turbocharger, the acceleration was slightly reduced.

So these conversions would be spending much more than the car is worth to double the fuel cost, greatly reduce the driving range and reduce the performance. Uh, something tells me that won't sell!

What do you think will produce the Hydrogen? SOLAR PANELS!!!

The cheapest sources of H2 is steam reformed fossil fuels, and most people will choose the cheapest option, not the pricier H2 from renewables.

More importantly, the combination of electrolyser and compression for storage and fuel cell is only 24% efficient. Compare that with 85% efficiency for charger and batteries, going the H2 route requires 3x more electricity. Considering the high price of solar electricity, wouldn't it be better to avoid wasting 2/3rds of it on the less efficient H2 option?

Come to think of it, the general population will choose the cheapest option, go plug-in, and forget about the hydrogen hype. The future is electric.

Well, I do agree that the US should be more independent as far as being able to produce its own energy. However, even though global warming is due to the natural changes of the earth, that is no excuse for humans to continue polluting the earth. True we could have an ice age in another century, but I still don't want to have to breathe carbon monoxide until then. People only change, adapt, and overcome when a big enough obstacle is in their way. Hence, rising fuel costs equals panic equals change. Tree-huggers or not we have to evolve.

I don't know about you but I sure as heck don't want to be breathing CO2 for the rest of my life. I just woke up this morning to a smell of exahust!! Sorry, but I'm going for the Hydrogen!!

You'd better hope you keep breathing CO2 for the rest of your life! It's what you exhale every time you breathe.

So what flavor was your cool aid, Zallen?

we know where you get your information...

Yes you have to research the info that's being fed to you... You can start with the Climate change report manufactured by the White House, but please insist on reading the blacked out sections of the book while you are at it.

redbird001, you know what I'm talking about. CO2 that comes from us is not the same as CO2 that comes from vehicles! Please, rethink.

we do need alternative fuels, however, what no one ever points out is that oil is not only used to heat our homes & fuel our cars.....oil is in everything we use, everyday....where do plastics/polymers come from????? look around you....& look at the roads you drive on....so what alternative will be used to make garbage bags, pave our roads & all of the plastics used in the cars that are made????? & definately the "food for fuel" is a bad thing as well - what does it take to make ethanol & then transport it? & to also mix the fuel...that doesn't happen by just adding it into the existing gas...it has to be distilled....

Those will have to come in time. There has to be a place to start and it's looking like it's going to be vehicles.

So we'll be having to give up things like plastics, many chemicals, cosmetics, shall I go on?

Changing batteries would be far worse than recharging.
First of all, your talking a 1-2 hour job depending on the set up and battery size (It's not a little one like it is on your gasoline car).
The worse part for the consumer would be the cost. I'd estimate it to be at least $500 - $1,000 each time you replaced the batteries. You'd be doing this every 2-3 days. It would be far cheaper to pay for gas at it's current price.

The 2 major problems with electric cars is the drivable distance on a charge and the top speed. Until you can drive 250 miles at 85 mph on a single charge electric cars are not viable.
Electric cars must give at least the same performance of a gasoline car before most people will be inclined to buy one. The price also needs to be drastically reduced.
Another thing I am concerned about is safety. Electric cars must be made as light as possible so the electric motor can propel it. Looking at current gasoline cars made lighter to get better gas mileage, their safety has gone way down compared to cars made more than 30 years ago. Until we learn how to make a metal as strong as steel (like was used in cars in the 70s and earlier) but as light as aluminum, alternatives like the electric car is nothing but a pipe dream or a death trap.

Our best bet for now is to stop worrying about the economy of other Nations and fend for ourselves. Stop buying OPEC and selling our oil to poorer Countries. The US produces more than enough oil to meet our needs, but we can't do it as long as our politicians sell it to other Governments because those Governments can't afford OPEC prices. Our economy is suffering because our leaders have us supporting other Nations.

Vote out of office both the Republicans and the Dumbocrats (I know this is the correct spelling because the "Check Spelling" easily identified the alternative spelling). Vote in some totally independent people. Let the greedy party members know we are tired of them making money off our backs. Vote in people who will cut the fat out of the Government, reduce spending and, especially, cut aid to foreign lands. Let's take care of Americans first, make sure everyone has a job, a roof over their head, affordable health care and food to eat; then whatever is left can be used to aid other Countries.

I agree with that last paragraph :)

Battery swaps are technically possible, with a well engineered design the swap could take less than 5 minutes. Of course, it would require a standardized modular battery and a specially designed swap station. The swap company would be leasing the batteries - otherwise, no one would want to swap their new batteries for one that might be older.
But there are other options. There are already batteries on the market that can be fully charged in less than 15 minutes, though a quick charging an automotive version would require a hefty power connection, it might prove to be cheaper than swapping.
Plug-in hybrids can provide local driving on electricity at 1/5 the cost of gas, yet be able to go long distances on gasoline when needed.
Recent research breakthroughs indicate that freeway speed 1,000 mile batteries may soon be available - after driving all day, most people would want to stop at a motel and recharge overnight - themselves and the car.
Powered automated guideways would offer EVs unlimited range and recharging while travelling - something not possible with gassers or H2.
Doncorneo: Even if we opened up all offshore and wilderness areas to oil drilling, that extra oil wouldn't arrive for several years, and it still wouldn't be enough, we'd still be importing nearly half of the oil we need. Moreover, production on those wells would decline over time, just like all the other oil wells have, so after a decade or so we would be back to the same old problem. We can't continue the same old gas guzzling ways. The future is electric.

If you're waiting until Hydrogen fuel cell cars are cheaper than petrol powered cars, you'll wait forever. They require platinum for catalyst, and that is not cheap. Hydrogen storage is also very expensive - 10,000 psi carbon fiber pressure tanks will never be cheap! H2 fuel isn't cheap either, it costs as much to refuel a H2 fuel cell car as one that runs on petrol.

Battery electric cars are also more expensive than "gassers", but the price is much closer, and batteries don't require rare and expensive materials. There are promising new batteries under development that could bring the price of EVs to be competitive in just a few years. Also, the cost of 300 miles worth of electricity is less than $12.

You go girl!! :) :) :) :)

It would take a long series of major breakthroughs in hydrogen fuel cells and in hydrogen storage before H2 FC cars are affordable to anyone. But don't dispair, battery electric cars can:
*decrease our dependency on oil from unstable middle east countries.
*Avoid spending billions of $ on wars for oil (Iraq had no WMD, remember?)
*Stop the killing of American troops and innocent middle east families.
*Allow us to continue our American-style preference for individual vehicles for transportation.
*Vastly diminish our global impact on air and water quality.
*Prevent the use of corn for ethanol production, which is already making corn unaffordable for other nations who depend on this staple to avoid starvation.
*Provide more U.S. jobs in research and development and manufacture of this infinite type of fuel.

And do it all sooner and cheaper and 3x more efficiently than Hydrogen ever could.
The future is electric.

I think you need to do some research on the Hindenburg. Then think about the gasoline fumes in the tank, fuel lines, and injectors of your car.

Well, you would pay a premium, even with major government subsidies the lease is still $600 per month, and there is no purchase option - few could afford the half million dollar cost. You'd also pay a premium for fuel, about twice current costs.

Other than high lease costs, no purchase option, high fuel cost, 250 mile range and lack of refueling facilities, it is just great!

I just wish they'd dump the fuel cell and make a plug-in version.

The Honda Home Energy Station costs $50,000 and runs on natural gas, not sunlight. But if you want your driving to be powered by expensive solar cells, better choose the battery electric option, as it uses just 1/3 the electricity that an electrolyzer/fuel cell combo would. That means spending 1/3 as much for solar cells, or having extra electricity to offset coal burning powerplants.

You may be surprised to find that burning gasoline and diesel also produce water vapor, and that a H2 fuel cell produces less water than the equivalent IC engine. Water vapor may be a greenhouse gas, but it is also self-regulating, condensing out as rain and dew when the concentration gets too high.

A better reason to oppose H2 fuel is the extravagant high cost, and the fact that battery electrics are more efficient.

Yes, but an electrical outlet would be far cheaper to install and cost far less to run. Why choose the more expensive less efficient hydrogen option? The future is electric.

Sorry, but water isn't a fuel, it doesn't burn as it is already burned. Now, with a supply of electrical or chemical energy, it is possible to "unburn" the water, splitting it into H2 and O2, but the energy comes from the electricity or chemical, not from the water.

Turns out, not all the electricity that goes into an electrolysis cell goes to split water molecules, some ends up as waste heat. Efficiency is at best 60%, IC engines around 15% to 30%, overall only 7%. If you put 1 Kwh of electricity in, you'd only get 0.07 Kwh out!

So where would all the electricity come from for electrolysis? Bigger Batteries? It would be simpler, cheaper and more efficient to make an EV. From the alternator? But that would mean more power needed from the engine, which would mean more fuel needed, which would mean more electricity needed, which would mean an even bigger alternator demanding more power, more fuel, more electricity.... Nope, never work that way.

Now of course there are always scam artists trying to sell an "electrolyzer cell" made from $10 worth of plumbing parts for $1,900, or selling worthless "guide books" and "plan drawing". Unfortunately, there are always suckers willing to pay for that dream of "free fuel" for their car.

Hydrogen is such a bulky fuel that even compressed to 10,000 psi (yes, 5 tons per square inch!) and used with highly efficent fuel cells, the automotive engineers can just barely be able to fit the tank in and squeak out a 300 mile range. There literally isn't room for an oxygen tank. Fortunately, the H2 FC can get all the oxygen it needs from the air.
Sorry, but the oil companies are the biggest boosters for hydrogen - Shell, BP, Chevron, the American Petroleum Institute, etc. are all eagerly pushing for it. After all, the oil companies are the biggest producers of hydrogen, they have the cheapest source of hydrogen, and intend to sell you that expensive new H2 fuel when the oil runs low.