Filed under: Hydrogen, Honda, Green Daily, Japan
Honda starts FCX leases in Japan, kids targeted
Deliveries of the US-spec FCX Clarity took place back in July and since then plenty of celebrities and excited hydrogen fuel cell advocates have been leasing the vehicles in Southern California. Honda has long planned to also offer the FCX Clarity in Japan, but it wasn't until today that anyone there has been able to take one home. Well, sort of. The first delivery in Japan was to the Ministry of the Environment, which previously had the original FCX fuel cell vehicle. In Japan, Honda will only offer the FCX Clarity to "governmental agencies and certain corporate entities" for the foreseeable future.
This limitation does not mean that Honda thinks that only the Japanese government should get an H2 vehicle. In fact, Honda is promoting the FCX Clarity with an introduction event aimed at children. I'm sure all hydrogen fuel cells skeptics will have a field day with this bit from Honda PR:
The event ... provid[ed] children an opportunity to learn more about environmental issues, dream their own dreams of advanced technology, and experience the wonder of the FCX Clarity by seeing and touching the actual vehicle. This experience also encouraged children to take a step ahead of adults and envision a more environmentally responsible future, one in which the first automobile they drive will be a fuel cell vehicle.
Indeed.
Gallery: 2009 Honda FCX Clarity First drive
[Source: Honda]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Mark Kiernan 8:01PM (11/25/2008)
Ok lets make a comparison between Hydrogen and Electricity
Electricity is easy to find, cheap, and easy to store
Hydrogen is difficult to produce, expensive to store, and distribution is almost non-existent.
Way to go Honda
Reply
mfcx 2:14AM (11/26/2008)
electricity comes from coal right now smartie
hydrogen is an energy carrier
you get electricity when hydrogen is used in a fuel cell
you would have been better off comparing hydrogen to coal, than hydrogen to electricity.
Also just for those people out there who are still unsure. A fuel cell vehicle is an ELECTRIC VEHICLE..it has an electric motor..just like an electric car...it has an energy storage medium ..just like an electric car...and better yet, it's zero emissions just like an electric car (don't even argue that the hydrogen has to be produced from renewables in order to make fuel cell vehicles viable because even EVs are powered by coal these days until we have solar charging stations).
miles 8:03AM (11/26/2008)
H2 tank with fuel cell is the stupidest way to make an electric car that I can think of. H2 is very difficult to manage. The ONLY advantage over batteries is no hours-long recharge time. Batteries are better now and improving all the time. H2 is just a bettery that you recharge by filling the tank.
GoodCheer 9:22AM (11/26/2008)
"you would have been better off comparing hydrogen to coal, than hydrogen to electricity. "
I don't understand why you would say this, they're BOTH just energy carriers. You point out, electricity comes from coal, but you fail to mention that hydrogen comes (mostly) from natural gas mixed with superheated steam.
pkuhl 10:19AM (11/26/2008)
Here's a fuel cell engineer explaining why Hydrogen fuel cells are a big waste of research dollars. Its because they are less efficient, and must be due to thermodynamics, than electric cars:
http://www.efcf.com/reports/E17.pdf
george 3:41PM (11/26/2008)
hey pkuhl :
your ulf bossel presentation fails to make any mention of oil-related wars and the cost of them and how they should ultimately be factored into the "efficiency" of petroleum.
now seriously, think about it.... how many wars will be fought over a fuel than can be made in your backyard and virtually replace petroleum and it's terrorism baggage?
mfcx 2:37AM (11/26/2008)
oh and for all those in favor of the plug-ins coming out in the next two years from companies such as GM (the Volt) and Toyota (the Prius)...the first 40-50 miles run off lithium-ion batteries...awesome!....the next 200-300 miles...old fossil fuel combustion engine technology with a maximum theoretical efficiency of 19% as a range extender to keep engine suppliers in business? complete B.S.!
why not have use a 45-55% efficient (at max power) fuel cell range extender for the next 200-300 miles and reduce CO2? Why an engine as a range extender? Why still use oil?
I don't get it when some of you readers pit electric vehicles against fuel cell vehicles when they're BOTH electric vehicles? People need to understand that batteries, fuel cells and ultracaps all compliment each other and that none is superior over the other in general. When it comes to specific cases, fuel cells are better for range and weight, batteries are better for amount of energy stored but since they do so chemically response time is sluggish whereas ultracaps store energy physically, so they provide quick bursts of energy for charging and discharging.
Anyone working in the auto industry closely with all these technologies knows that the future is going to be a combination of batteries, ultracaps, and fuel cells for 300-plus mile vehicles....now if you're talking 50 miles and under, then people should just drive all-battery electric since there's no need for a range extender at that point.
Autobloggreen, you really need to do a better job of educating your readers. I think that a good majority of them are deeply confused about electric vehicle technology.
Reply
Mark Kiernan 3:45PM (11/26/2008)
I think the greatest problem still with hydrogen is the availablity. I live in Italy where LPG and methane gas are available for cars, but the availablity of the latter is very low, and that is counting on it's sale from regular petrol stations. Where do you think we will be able to buy hydrogen? If it is from the regular petrol station we should see hydrogen for sale in the next 15 years. Elecricity is not fantastic, but I can plug in at home, at my office, in the car park, at my friend's house etc. Hydrogen doesn't match that, and can't.
DasBoese 5:24AM (11/26/2008)
And some readers are apparently deeply uneducated when it comes to things like chemistry, physics, engineering and economics.
The basic thing you don't seem to have grasped is that hydrogen doesn't just magically fall from the sky.
We need to create it, but every conceivable process of doing so is much less efficient than generating electricity from the same energy source would be. Then add to that the fact that hydrogen is a horrible energy carrier due to its chemical and physical properties, and the fact that re-converting it to electricity in a fuel cell is a lossy process as well.
Look, we've understood that fuel cell cars are electric vehicles as well.
It's just that it's now generally accepted that, compared to battery electric vehicles, they introduce a number of unnecessary additional steps (and loss mechanisms) between the energy source and the electric motor.
mfcx 2:48AM (11/26/2008)
oh and one last thing I need to clear up for the readers...a 'hydrogen car' isn't just a hydrogen car...there are two types of hydrogen powered vehicles...
one is called a h2 ice vehicle in which the inefficent combustion engine is used and a mixture of hydrogen and air is used in combustion, while the lubricants are still oil based...
and the second is a FCEV...a fuel cell 'electric vehicle'...yes i said 'ELECTRIC'...in which a 45-55% efficient fuel cell is used, typically coupled with a battery and ultracaps to power a 3-phase AC 'electric' motor (yes I did say electric a second time) to drive the wheels. And did I mention the caps and batteries recapture the lost energy via regen braking? Wow sounds sooo different from an electric vehicle...damn that hydrogen! lol
comprende?
Reply
Serge 10:19AM (11/26/2008)
mfcx:
I am willing to embrace the EV with a Fuel-Cell range extender (horrible "well-to-wheel" inefficiency of fuel-cell notwithstanding) if you can show me how an EV with a Fuel Cell Range Extender will become an affordable vehicle within a 5 year time frame. At the current cost of $1M per car, Honda FCX has a long way to go. Oh, please do not forget to add the cost of building hydrogen-fueling infrastructure.
Plug-ins like the Volt are within striking distance of affordability targets. It only has 40 miles on introduction, but that range will increase with time. And range-extending network is already built.
Claro?
Mike!!ekiM 7:50AM (11/26/2008)
Every YEN wasted on Hydrogen development just puts Honda 1 step behind the competition. We're looking at the downfall of Honda. This is the problem when One Man's Vision drives a company( into the ground ).
Reply
Dustin 9:03AM (11/26/2008)
This is so brilliant. Honda has it's corporate head on straight.
Mike!!ekiM 9:29AM (11/26/2008)
Who's paying for the Hydrogen Dead End?
Kickback Examples?
Check out BAYER:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/25/bayer-to-pay-975m-to-sett_n_146477.html
Reply
Gary 11:06AM (11/26/2008)
I guess it's easy to brain... er, greenwash children.
Reply
mfcx 11:20AM (11/26/2008)
"I don't understand why you would say this, they're BOTH just energy carriers. You point out, electricity comes from coal, but you fail to mention that hydrogen comes (mostly) from natural gas mixed with superheated steam." >>Thank you! You hit the nail right on the head. Both come from producing fossil fuels at the moment. So that's one of the points I was trying to make when the first person who commented said electricty is cleaner. Also, just to let you know electricity is flow of current. A hydrogen atom has one outer electron in its outer valence shell that can be oxidized in a fuel cell to free up the electron to produce electricity. So basically what I'm getting at here is the person who was trying to compare electricity to hydrogen is basically comparing flow of current to an energy carrier and that's not a comparison. Now if they were comparing natural gas produced hydrogen to coal, then that is a much better comparison. Because both are energy intensive. It takes energy to get coal and turn it into electricity and it takes energy to get natural gas and then convert it to hydrogen. So all I was trying to do was to help put things in perspective for the person who first posted.
Reply
Mike!!ekiM 11:22AM (11/26/2008)
More Oil Kickback Scandals:
Peru / Norway:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=d9bb56cf-df7e-4673-aae6-424655035c65
Reply
mfcx 11:43AM (11/26/2008)
"I am willing to embrace the EV with a Fuel-Cell range extender (horrible "well-to-wheel" inefficiency of fuel-cell notwithstanding)">> So you're saying you'd rather embrace an EV with an ICE range extender? the same ICE that uses the oil we want to reduce our dependence on? the same 19% max theoretical efficency engine? the same technology that our country has fought wars over and keeps us in Iraq? Now I know what you hydrogen haters are all going to say now...but what about hydrogen? it comes from natural gas..so how will things be any better by still using a fossil fuel such as natural gas? 1) if a an FC range extender using natural gas hydrogen was used over an ICE, you the car 'itself' will not be polluting CO2 40 miles and above 2) we don't have to fight with other countries that hate our guts to get natural gas and actually want to do business with us more (the Caribbean, excluding Cuba), unlike the oils wealthy nations like Venezuela, Iran and Iraq who don't like us right now 3) you have a ZERO emissions car...even if the range extender's hydrogen was produced from 'natural gas'...the car itself has zero emissions from the tailpipe..i mean c'mo not even the lithium ion batteries in the car are truly zero emissions, the energy is coming from foss fuels still..so basically what i'm saying is...if you're going to use fossil fuels to generate electricity for a plug-in...why not eliminate the ICE? Like I don't even care if there's no fuel cell range extender...it should just be all battery electric..why does the volt need a ICE engine in it if battery technology is as advanced as you autoblog green readers say? Why not run all 200-300 miles on batteries? For the sole reason that the range extender in the Volt is an ICE, I would never buy it. I'd rather convert an existing donor ICE car into a lead-acid battery powered electric vehicle for under 7K.
And in terms of fuel cells, I think it makes sense for where both batteries and ICEs fail. But the ideal car is an all-battery electric..none of this range extending B.S. If you need to travel far, take mass transit.
if you can show me how an EV with a Fuel Cell Range Extender will become an affordable vehicle within a 5 year time frame. At the current cost of $1M per car, Honda FCX has a long way to go. Oh, please do not forget to add the cost of building hydrogen-fueling infrastructure??" what about the money it costs to sustain the current oil infrastructure' so that you can drive your Volt with it's 'horribly inefficient' ICE range extender??
Plug-ins like the Volt are within striking distance of affordability targets. It only has 40 miles on introduction, but that range will increase with time. "I agree but what is the range extender until then?"
And range-extending network is already built.>."Yes and that range extending network is an oil based one"
(p.s.- a natural gas infrastructure is also in place..it's just the oil based is more developed because it has brought in more revenue for the people letting our economy slide)
Claro?">> Claro ;)
Reply
Serge 2:38PM (11/26/2008)
you have not persuaded me, because you failed to demonstrate what I asked for ;)
Look, I am not a hater: neither of hydrogen nor of oil. Regarding the latter, I fully understand the dangers of status quo: relying on oil to sustain our [world] economy and future (otherwise I wouldn't be here). For a variety of reasons, we need solutions and we need them now. These solutions need to work and ready to be deployed quickly.
Like you, I see full electrification of transportation as a long-term solution. Our differences are in how we get there and what do we do now. Which brings me to the question of why I am a critic of "hydrogen initiatives". Mainly, because it is a distraction. When BEV programs were gathering critical mass in late 90s, FUD campaigns failed to kill them. What did, what the promise of hydrogen power "right around the corner." Ten years later, all we have is 200 Honda FCXs paid for by billions of taxpayer-funded dollars, domestic auto-industry on the bring of collapse, the Iraq war, and unprecedented climate change that is just "gathering steam".
Imagine, for a minute, if our focus and massive resources remained on development of viable electric vehicles. There was an EV1 series-hybrid prototype in the works with CNG turbine as a range-extender after all. We could have third-fourth generation of these vehicles right now!
Back to the real world. We need to get a sense of urgency into debate about our future. Right now, let the hydrogen programs pay for themselves. I want my taxpayer dollars spent on supporting BEV and plug-in programs.
mfcx 12:14PM (11/26/2008)
And some readers are apparently deeply uneducated when it comes to things like chemistry, physics, engineering and economics.>> And some readers fail to understand that people in industry who support hydrogen fuel cell technology also support battery technology. They both compliment each other. They shouldn't be viewed as competing technologies as the directors of 'Who Killed the Electric Vehicle' have made them out to be. A batteries make perfect sense for as many miles as they can cover given the weight of the vehicle is not significantly increased and the batteries do not overheat (one of the reason why the batteries for the Volt have been delayed a number of times). Fuel cell only makes sense in automotive applications to increase range and reduce weight for that given range..other than that an electric vehicle should ideally be all-battery-electric. In my opinion, I think it's absolutely retarded that the auto industry is focusing on plug-ins..why? why not all battery electric for a range up to 150 miles and anything more, take public transportation or mass transit? Why don't these auto companies go back to what they use to do and make buses again for longer distance driving? GM use to make buses and then they shut that plant down in favor of making ICE vehicles.
The basic thing you don't seem to have grasped is that hydrogen doesn't just magically fall from the sky. "I 'grasp' this very well, I'm a mechanical engineer. Energy itself doesn't fall from the sky and I fully acknowledge that it takes a lot f energy to produce hydrogen.
We need to create it, but every conceivable process of doing so is much less efficient than generating electricity from the same energy source would be.>>>hydrogen can't be created. I think what you mean is that it takes energy to free up hydrogen from chemical compounds. And by the way, there are more efficient ways of making hydrogen, you should visit the US DOE's National Renewable Energy Lab sometime and you'll get a whole new perspective on generating hydrogen. There are many way to make hydrogen and I agree, some are much more inefficient and costly than others. But the only reason why I bring up fuel cells as a range extender in plug ins vs. combustion engine range extenders in plug ins is because when fuel cells powered by hydrogen (even when made from a low efficiency process such as electrolysis) is till more efficient than extracting oil, refining it, shipping it, distributing it and running through an ICE as a range extender in a plug-in.
Then add to that the fact that hydrogen is a horrible energy carrier due to its chemical and physical properties, and the fact that re-converting it to electricity in a fuel cell is a lossy process as well.>>> "How is an element on a periodic a horrible energy carrier? that's like saying a desk drawer is a bad place to put pens and pencils. It's an energy carrier! It's not a current producing device. It's an element on the periodic table. And lastly, a hydrogen atom itself cannot be converted into electricity. If you can accomplish that, I will personally give you a Nobel Prize. ;)
Look, we've understood that fuel cell cars are electric vehicles as well.
It's just that it's now generally accepted that, compared to battery electric vehicles, they introduce a number of unnecessary additional steps (and loss mechanisms) between the energy source and the electric motor.>> see there you Autoblog green readers go again comparing fuel cell vehicles to battery vehicles...boy does the media need to get their act together on educating the public better. No one here denies the advantages of a battery and in no way am I saying that fuel cells are better than batteries and that batteries are better than fuel cells. They both have advantages and disadvantages. But more importantly, they need each other until there is more improvement in battery technologies weight, lithium ion safety and overheating, and amount of energy stored. But if this country can accept the fact that the average American doesn't need to drive 300 miles and only 40 a day, then we can be driving all battery electric RVs RIGHT NOW!
And by the way, if you really want to go that route about inefficiencies from the energy source to the motor, you also have large losses going from coal to a battery. So don't even start because I'm a supporter of battery technology just as much as I am fuel cells.
Reply