Archives

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/2/AmericanFlag.jpg The Honda FCX Clarity is the Chosen One! (cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=199768)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/Honda_FCX_Clarity.jpgMike Sirach – CleanMPG (cleanmpg.com) – April 9, 2009

At a press conference hosted by the New York International Auto Show and Mobil 1 at the Jacob Javits Centre in Manhattan, New York, the Honda FCX Clarity was declared the 2009 World Green Car.

The Honda FCX Clarity was chosen from an initial entry list of twenty-two (22) contenders nominated by fifty-nine (59) World Car jurors from twenty-five (25) countries throughout the world.

To be eligible for the 2009 World Green Car* award, a vehicle had to available in at least one major market during 2008.

The vehicle or the green technology could be in production or an experimental prototype with potential near-future application, provided that it was released for individual or press fleet evaluations in quantities of ten or more during 2008.

Tailpipe emissions, fuel consumption, and use of a major advanced power plant technology (beyond engine components), aimed specifically at increasing the vehicle's environmental responsibility, were all taken into consideration.

Due to the complexity of some of the 'green' technologies, three (3) green experts were appointed by the World Car Steering Committee to extensively review all documentation and specs associated with each candidate. They were asked to create a short-list of five finalists for review by the fifty-nine (59) jurors in their second round of voting in February. The ballots were then tabulated by the international accounting firm KPMG.

The three green experts were in alphabetical order:

Sam Abuelsamid (representing North America) is the technical editor of several 'green' web sites including GreenFuelsForecast.com, DieselForecast.com and HydrogenForecast.com. In 2006, he began writing for AutoblogGreen.com and Autoblog.com; becoming a full-time writer and photographer and editor in 2007.

Dean Slavnich (representing Europe) is editor of Engine Technology International (ETi) and its sister publication, Electric & Hybrid Vehicle Technology International (E&H), for the past four years. Engine Technology International is widely regarded as the most readable, passionate and informative publication currently produced on the subject of OE engine and powertrain design, development and manufacture.

Tadashi Tateuchi (representing Asia) is the creator and chairman of the Japan Electric Vehicle (EV) Club. He was awarded the Environment Minister's medal in 1998. A juror on the Japan Car of the Year panel, he contributes regularly to Car Graphic magazine and the Japan Automobile Federation's monthly magazine.

The fifty-nine (59) member jury chose the Honda FCX Clarity, the Mitsubishi iMiEV, and the ToyotaiQ as the top three finalists for the 2009 World Green Car award.

Jurors felt that “The FCX clarity is an utterly real, hydrogen-fuelled luxury sedan that provides the amenities people expect in a premium car with 430 km range, fuel consumption of about 3.3 litres/100 km (72 mpg US) equivalent and zero tailpipe emissions. While there is only so much the automotive industry can do when it comes to this technology – governments need to come onboard to help create a true refuelling infrastructure – Honda must be credited for taking a bold step in leasing FCX Clarity to customers in California for US$600 per month. There's still a long way to go before fuel-cell cars will become a commercial success, but hats off to Honda for continuing to advance this expensive technology during a time when every cent counts..”

"Honda is honored to receive this distinguished award. The FCX Clarity is a symbol of the progress we have made with fuel cell vehicles and our commitment to developing vehicles that meet the societal goals of climate stability, renewable energy supplies and zero-emissions transportation”, said Steve Center, Vice President, National Marketing Operations, American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

Now in their sixth year, the annual World Car awards have become one of the world’s most prestigious, credible and significant programs of its kind.

Thats the thing with Hydrogen... I am tired of the needing a new infrastructure.
Electricity is everywhere.

It is no secret to many here that I would take this car in a heartbeat if only Honda made it available to me today.

Since it can operate at -30C without any issues and current hydrogen supply is not a big problem for me, the FCX would be a far superior solution to a plug-in full EV vehicle.
This car does not make sense for everyone yet given how limited the hydrogen supply is, but for some some of us it would be as close to ideal as it gets.


Cheers;

MSantos

I filled out a survey that Honda sent me the other day and said I would be interested if they decided to extend "the program" to other parts of the USA. I can't see a hydrogen refueling station located in a county with a population of about 26,000 though.

I can't see a hydrogen refueling station located in a county with a population of about 26,000 though.

Or a county of 50,000 like the one I live in. And I wouldn't want to drive a 100 mile round trip to fuel up (the next county over has almost 700,000).

I applaud Honda's effort, but widespread hydrogen refueling stations are just unfeasible. Gas stations are barely scraping by enough to upgrade existing pumps. As it is now, gas stations with diesel are too few and far between for me to consider that an option as well.

Manuel, how is the hydrogen supply near you generated?

I don't mean to crush the hopes of many who believe this is a good alternative to our fossil fuels. I agree that we need to find something else to help us store energy... But have you ever been outside on a very humid day? Not very fun.... Now imagine the smog layer from all the cars in a major city putting out water vapor and increasing the humidity all over the city. Besides, when it comes to global warming water vapor is much worse than carbon dioxide [The radiative forcing for water is around 75 W/m2 while carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m2 (Kiehl 1997).] Trying to make hydrogen fuel cells the mainstream just doesn't seem feasible in my mind, especially if we are worried about global warming...

Nothing is a permanent solution. Hopefully fuel cells can become economically feasible. Would the offset of gasoline/diesel combustion gases by water vapor be beneficial on a 1:1 scale?

Hi Sean;

At the moment, the best and cheapest source of hydrogen in my area is the industrial manufacturing processes. Much of this hydrogen is produced as a by-product but is in many cases being discarded. Sure, the existing quantities could not sustain nowhere near an entire city of FCV's... but, it could sustain a small number of vehicles for the foreseeable future. Perhaps even a number of FCV's comparable to the number of hybrids we have in our cities today.

Second, Honda has offered a set hydrogen generating solutions for both short and long term and their energy generation partnerships of recent years along with a pretty solid IP portfolio means they are quite serious about its feasibility.
But still, would I be willing to supplement the current supply of industrial hydrogen with CNG sourced Hydrogen with a PHILL station? You bet I would. And in the process, I would gladly toss out my 92% efficient furnace in exchange for a home station like that. A win-win for me.

Cheers;

MSantos

Beneficial? Depends on how you put it. I think that fuel cells will help to secure our future transportation at a reasonable cost, which is extremely important to our economy. However, I don't know about the ecosystem benefit. From the numbers it looks more like we will increase global warming (which is another argument entirely... since the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles which have nothing to do with humans). The only thing I happen to have any clue on is that we would be replacing one green house gas with another much stronger greenhouse gas. However, many of the other emissions from cars will be gone. Guess that doesn't really answer your question, since I don't claim to know for sure. But just thought I would throw this out and see what responses come back.

I see. I don't think I'd be willing to use hydrogen sourced from a fossil fuel... seems like shifting our problems to a different part of the same limited resource.

I see. I don't think I'd be willing to use hydrogen sourced from a fossil fuel... seems like shifting our problems to a different part of the same limited resource.

In this particular situation, he is looking at using a "waste" product that is curently being discarded. For that situation, it doesn't matter what the original process is IMO.

Sounds like good policy to me. Waste not, want not.

True, but the PHILL station he mentioned does not do this. It strips hydrogen from unused NG.

Is it just me? Am I the only one so jaundiced as to wonder why CAR MAGAZINE guys opted for Honda's (albeit wonderful) Clarity, without looking at the Fisker, the Tesla or the Aptera (or similar?).

Could it possibly be that Honda might just be inclined to place more ads in their magazines?? (Bad puppydog! Slap my wrist! Go take another upper ...)

According to Dan's calculations, the PHILL and FCX combo actually goes farther per unit of natural gas than a straight ng-burning vehicle.

http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=128781#post128781

You are quite right Sean.

And this approach is definitely not ready for the masses, not by a long shot.
However, we are also literally wasting truly astounding amounts of by-product hydrogen because of existing processes and that is the low hanging fruit that is often ignored especially when considering the challenges of a relatively immature if not non-existent infrastructure.
In my case industrial hydrogen IS relatively cheap and abundant for now with less guilt to boot. As a supplement, the home station I am referring to would maximize efficiencies beyond what my current CNG home furnace provides and according to my calculations would leave me in a marginally better position still... all the while keeping my FCV topped off.
So far, If I had to choose between a plug-in and an FCV, the FCV would win.

Cheers;

MSantos

I don't mean to crush the hopes of many who believe this is a good alternative to our fossil fuels. I agree that we need to find something else to help us store energy... But have you ever been outside on a very humid day? Not very fun.... Now imagine the smog layer from all the cars in a major city putting out water vapor and increasing the humidity all over the city. Besides, when it comes to global warming water vapor is much worse than carbon dioxide [The radiative forcing for water is around 75 W/m2 while carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m2 (Kiehl 1997).] Trying to make hydrogen fuel cells the mainstream just doesn't seem feasible in my mind, especially if we are worried about global warming...
I thought like that too on water vapor until I realized that the combustion process also creates water. Hydrogen does create more -- I think around 2-3 times more per unit of energy consumed. But the fuel cell is also more efficient at using the energy provided to it, with the FCX being rated at 72 mpg. So the fuel cell does create more water vapor, but the difference is not as large as many people think.

Besides, when it comes to global warming water vapor is much worse than carbon dioxide.

I'm sorry, but I just can't believe that for a second. We live on a water planet. The hottest places on Earth are the driest locations.

Water vapor is NOT a greenhouse gas.

As far as the Clarity goes, supermodels are nice looking, too, and just as possible for us mere mortals.

An "unobtanium" car should not be given any great honors. How many Clarity's will be on the road? 50?

Harry

... Besides, when it comes to global warming water vapor is much worse than carbon dioxide [The radiative forcing for water is around 75 W/m2 while carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m2 (Kiehl 1997).] Trying to make hydrogen fuel cells the mainstream just doesn't seem feasible in my mind, especially if we are worried about global warming...

This is total radiative forcing, which is not helpful because the two have very different atmospheric concentrations and lifetimes.

What is the forcing value per unit of emissions, per mile driven, per unit of energy produced, or some other useful basis?

And what is the average residence time in the atmosphere? We'd be in far better AGW shape if CO2 typically precipitated out of the atmosphere within a few days or weeks, instead of staying aloft many decades.

I'm sorry, but I just can't believe that for a second. We live on a water planet. ... Water vapor is NOT a greenhouse gas.

Actually it is:
Greenhouse_Gases_Gallery (http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Greenhouse_Gases_Gallery)
Wikipedia:Greenhouse_gas (http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Greenhouse_gas)

But see my previous post for my objections.

Fuzzy, you make a good point. The water vapor does stay in the atmosphere for a substantially less amount of time. However, I think part of the key lies in what the difference in water production between the two methods would be. If we were able to increase the humidity consistantly it could be a problem. It would be interesting to hear some of the estimates of where the cutoff would be between how much usage would end up being the tipping point to making things worse.

I think this could be worth while to spend some thought on, for someone who knows much more than I do about this, because Hydrogen is an abundant resource and quite easy to make (If we ever run out of natural sources or need more than the aforementioned processes can produce there is always the ability to create it by passing a large voltage through water!).

Manuel, as long as the PHILL isn't providing a significant percentage of your fuel, it isn't much different than a Volt which needs occasional extension of range via liquid fuel. I could live with that as well. :thumbs_up:

About 200 Honda Clarity cars will be leased over a period of 3 years per Honda's website. (http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/)

I'm sorry, but I just can't believe that for a second. We live on a water planet. The hottest places on Earth are the driest locations.
Water vapor is NOT a greenhouse gas.
As far as the Clarity goes, supermodels are nice looking, too, and just as possible for us mere mortals.
An "unobtanium" car should not be given any great honors. How many Clarity's will be on the road? 50?
Harry

I have to go with Harry on this one. 300 leases compared to 13 million auto sales last year - basically nothing.

Fuzzy, you make a good point. The water vapor does stay in the atmosphere for a substantially less amount of time. However, I think part of the key lies in what the difference in water production between the two methods would be. If we were able to increase the humidity consistantly it could be a problem. It would be interesting to hear some of the estimates of where the cutoff would be between how much usage would end up being the tipping point to making things worse.

Here are some extremely coarse estimates.

Your source indicates that total water contributes roughly 2.5X as much GW as total CO2. Other sources suggest that water vapor averages very roughly 10,000 ppm, about 25X as much as CO2. That means per unit of concentration, water is roughly one-tenth as strong a greenhouse gas as CO2.

As best I can tell, gasoline puts out roughly equal volumes of CO2 and water vapor, while hydrogen fuel puts puts out twice as much water and no CO2. Averaged together with the above ratio, that means gasoline fuel emissions are about 5 times worse than hydrogen fuel emissions, in short-term results.

There there is the atmospheric lifetime issue. One source on wikipedia lists water vapor as averaging 9 days, or 1/40th of a year. CO2 lifetime is complex, ranging from literally a few years, to effectively centuries or multiple millenia. So CO2 lasts 100 to 400,000 times longer than water vapor, depending on who is speaking.

Taken together, that puts a energy unit from burning gasoline being somewhere in the range of 500 to 2,000,000 times stronger impact on AGW than the same energy unit from hydrogen fuel.

We will run into many other serious problems before water vapor from hydrogen fuel becomes an issue.

I'm sorry, but it's absurd to even consider the production of water when fuel is burned. It essentially has no effect on our atmosphere. Producing water is far more desirable than producing CO2.

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleevapotranspiration.html

During a growing season, a leaf will transpire many times more water than its own weight. An acre of corn gives off about 3,000-4,000 gallons (11,400-15,100 liters) of water each day, and a large oak tree can transpire 40,000 gallons (151,000 liters) per year.

Someone want to suggest that we defoliate the entire planet because plants give off water? Of course not, especially since plants also change CO2 into O2.

Even considering the production of water from burning fuel is laughably frivolous, considering that 71 percent of the Earth's surface is covered by water, and the percent of water produced by burning fuel is inconsequential.

Harry

We will run into many other serious problems before water vapor from hydrogen fuel becomes an issue.

Very true statement, in fact we already have many serious problems ahead. Since I had previously heard quite a few arguments against the use of hydrogen from a professor of mine in college (an Earth and Atmospheric professor) I still just wonder if we are shifting problems around. For example working so hard to free ourselves from gasoline that we still have the same environmental problems as before... But you do give some good food for thought. But regardless I still applaud people for finding new ways to store energy.

There is a station within 10miles of my house importing Canadian H2, at least until they get some locally sourced hydrogen.