Video of a Honda Clarity hydrogen fill-up (http://www.latimes.com/video/?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=3440937)

Honda Clarity hydrogen fill-up. Notice the gentleman states the cost of hydrogen at the pump and what hydrogen really costs.

DAN NEIL
"Hydrogen fuel-cell technology won't work in cars. It's a tragic cul-de-sac in the search for sustainable mobility, being used to game the California Air Resources Board's rules requiring carmakers to build zero-emission vehicles. Any way you look at it, hydrogen is a lousy way to move cars."
Here's his article (also includes the video): http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-neil13-2009feb13,0,5876175.story

Thanks. Good find. I love the way this is written. "It's a tragic cul-de-sac in the search for sustainable mobility..." Funny stuff.

According to the article, the cars cost $2 million each, hydrogen costs $50/kg, produces just as much CO2 as burning oil, is 1/4th as energy efficient as charging a battery directly, and each hydrogen fueling station costs untold millions (which makes sense considering the massive pressures you have to keep the hydrogen to maintain its liquid state).

The more I learn about the prices of and logistical problems associated with hydrogen, the more I scratch my head about why anyone with half a brain is still throwing good money after it.

Hearing Honda investing millions into hydrogen reminds me of Rocky 4 when Rocky finally sees blood dripping from Drago's face. "He's not a machine, he's a man!"

The Japanese have finally proved they aren't all perfect either. Although GM is investing a whole lot of money in Fuel Cell cars STILL. I'm curious if someone has explained the above reasons to them or if they are just PR stunting, or just doing it to meet CARB mandates. I'm pretty sure it's the CARB mandates.

I love how at the end of the article he says they can keep their $2 million fuel cell car, he just wants a plug in.

There will always be people who find ways for things to not happen. It is important to cull the information from people who have axes to grind. The anti-nuclear crowd is a good example of this.

When a knowledgeable person who wants a technology to work says that there are problems, I tend to believe that person more.

Could they have found a worse guy to be in the video? He said that he was "mechanically inclined"! Ha!

Actually, the big cost of hydrogen is not the cost of the hydrogen - it's the cost of transporting it. Oil refineries are the biggest users of hydrogen, as a method for removing sulfur from crude oil. At the oil refineries, they make it out of natural gas, and it costs about $1.80/kg. They make it and use it on the same premises, because it's very expensive to transport.

Fuel cells won't be practical until they develop a breakthrough in transporting it. Honda and GM are banking on this, and continuing their research hoping someone else will make this happen. You have to give them some credit on this. When battery technology wasn't mature 12 years ago, GM got out of the EV business completely while Toyota went into the hybrid business. Toyota made the good bet, since the NiMh battery technology matured, and they got the green cred by making the Prius. GM bet against this, and got hammered by dropping the EV1. Now, they're taking the other side of the bet on hydrogen, and I hope it works out for them (and all of us).

From the article:

Perhaps obscured by questions of practicality and cost is the fact -- and it is a fact -- that the FCX Clarity is the most beautiful car to ever wear the big H on the nose. It's just gorgeous, a big garnet-red teardrop falling from the cheek of the future, a sweet stanza of robot-written poetry.

It's a fact: You sir have no clue about automotive beauty. None. Nil. Nada. You have lost all objectivity and credibility as a automotive critic. How much swag do you get from Honda anyways? Your obvious affection for the "Big H" is over flowing. Appropriate for this Valentine's day, but not so much as an automotive journalist.

When a knowledgeable person who wants a technology to work says that there are problems, I tend to believe that person more.

I see your point, it's easy to question a technology when you're not even the one with intimate knowledge of it, but I wonder if Honda's engineers aren't paid to decide what's realistic on a macro scale, only to do their job. I believe there are a lot of very hydrogen skeptical people who are working on it, they are just getting paid so well to do whatever it is that they do that they aren't going to rock the boat of what puts food on their table. Whenever you see auto makers showcasing their hydrogen prototypes, everyone always asks them questions like when will these be available, and when the platinum catalyser problem will be solved (since the dawn of time, only about 25 cubic meters of platinum has ever been mined from the earth's crust, and a lot of that is from meteors, there just isn't enough in the world to do make that many hydrogen cars), how to produce hydrogen efficiently and how much it really costs to produce pure hydrogen and get it to the hydrogen fueling station, it's always just a sidestep and avoid the question because there is no answer session. I've seen a few of these, and that's convincing enough for me to question its feasibility.



Actually, the big cost of hydrogen is not the cost of the hydrogen - it's the cost of transporting it.

Fuel cells won't be practical until they develop a breakthrough in transporting it. Honda and GM are banking on this, and continuing their research hoping someone else will make this happen.

I can see what you're saying. I would imagine tanker trucks cost quite a bit just being a big hollow piece of steel. Hydrogen tanker trucks would have to be capable of carrying a high pressure, and possibly corrosive substance. Plus Hydrogen's volumetric energy density is such that you would need about 2 tanker trucks of hydrogen to match what one tanker truck of gas can do (although it is much lighter). Hydrogen fueling stations would need to be refueled twice as often I would guess. A decentralized hydrogen production system would only work if the process was very inexpensive. There's no way you would get thousands of gas stations, especially the mom and pop gas stations out in the country to be able to afford to produce their own fuel unless it was. On the other hand, as you say, transporting hydrogen effectively is a logistical nightmare. A lot of gas is transported through pipes and stored in giant reservoirs. That would be a lot more difficult with hydrogen. We have gas pipelines that run from Portland to Eugene. I doubt transporting hydrogen would be so easy.


From the article:

It's a fact: You sir have no clue about automotive beauty. None. Nil. Nada. You have lost all objectivity and credibility as a automotive critic. How much swag do you get from Honda anyways? Your obvious affection for the "Big H" is over flowing. Appropriate for this Valentine's day, but not so much as an automotive journalist.

I thought that was a little weird too. A self proclaimed exotic car guru lost a lot of cred getting blown away by a very average looking car.

For anyone who has tons of time on their hands and really is interested in hydrogen. I found this.

http://books.google.com/books?id=LfFIEQg1iioC&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=cost+of+Cryogenic+liquid+tank+truck&source=web&ots=Zy5LZ0QK3i&sig=AFljKaTALlBGUGZjN_wEMiaVCP8&hl=en&ei=2jmXSYK_AYKOsQORsYR4&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPP1,M1

It's almost 250 pages long, but goes through pretty much everything you ever wanted to know about hydrogen and didn't realized it.

A few things to consider:


1) Honda is not just a car company. I like to think of them as an engineering company. They burn stuff to make things move. A hydrogen drive train is just a new an possibly profitable energy transfer system. If they can find a niche market then great. It also gives them excellent PR.

2) There is currently no solution for "heavy" transportation. It's petroleum or bust. Batteries are nowhere near ready to power U.S. semi-trucks or airplanes. Hydrogen just might turn out to be the only viable solution, due to the energy densities of pressurized and liquefied hydrogen.

3) The BEV will probably always beat out a HEV. The main reason is that mentioned above - it's extremely costly to produce, store, deliver, store again. At 1/4 the efficiency of the pure BEV only a quick-charge battery will be needed to make even the concept of using hydrogen for passenger cars obsolete. These new batteries exist and will be pronounced in 5 - 10 years, far before hydrogen technology is ready for commercialization.

4) We need to continue to research and develop hydrogen technology. Again, we don't have any practical solutions for some major modes of transportation. Additionally, we need more options to store electrical energy on our new smart grid. Hydrogen might not be that efficient but it's incredibly clean and perfectly renewable and sustainable. You could store massive amounts of energy in huge liquefied tanks and tankers.

5) There has been promising breakthroughs in hydrogen technology. From Honda's storage system to Dan Nocera's discovery of more efficient water hydrolysis. It would be silly not to work on this most basic and potentially useful research.

Hydrogen fuel cells WILL be the winning technology for maritime vessals, trains, long haul trucks and other large vehicles. In cars, hydrogen will win over those who want a high performance vehicle with the ability to rapidly recharge, so the wealthy will pay more to get more.

Hydrogen fuel cells WILL be the winning technology for maritime vessals, trains, long haul trucks and other large vehicles. In cars, hydrogen will win over those who want a high performance vehicle with the ability to rapidly recharge, so the wealthy will pay more to get more.

I've been surprised you haven't weighed in sooner.

I'll wager that hydrogen will not be used for those purposes. Hydrogen is a very inconvenient fuel for transportation. People will be willing to pay for the benefits of hydrocarbon fuels for transportation.

Hydrogen could be useful for applications where natural gas is primarily used today...heating, hot water, and some industrial applications such as glass melting.

选取熏衣草干花蕾5~6颗柠檬片或柠檬汁。将干燥的

OK, this is just a lie! Outrageous I tell you!! Please explain your hatred of ducks and cheese graters??!:eek:

I've been surprised you haven't weighed in sooner.

I'll wager that hydrogen will not be used for those purposes. Hydrogen is a very inconvenient fuel for transportation. People will be willing to pay for the benefits of hydrocarbon fuels for transportation.

Hydrogen could be useful for applications where natural gas is primarily used today...heating, hot water, and some industrial applications such as glass melting.

I am assuming that there will be a zero emissions mandate in the distant future, at which point, hydrogen will be used in place of hydrocarbons. Yes, hydrocarbons make sense economically in those applications now, but won't when emissions standards either prohibit the use of hydrocarbons, or make hydrocarbons economically infeasible compared to hydrogen.

I am assuming that there will be a zero emissions mandate in the distant future, at which point, hydrogen will be used in place of hydrocarbons. Yes, hydrocarbons make sense economically in those applications now, but won't when emissions standards either prohibit the use of hydrocarbons, or make hydrocarbons economically infeasible compared to hydrogen.

That's assuming that the cost of making net-zero (or at least low) CO2 hydrocarbons is going to be prohibitive. As I've posted before, there is already a process to make hydrocarbons using bio-feedstock + hydrogen.

I'll still wager that hydrocarbons will be the fuel of choice for transportation even in the "distant" future.

That's assuming that the cost of making net-zero (or at least low) CO2 hydrocarbons is going to be prohibitive. As I've posted before, there is already a process to make hydrocarbons using bio-feedstock + hydrogen.

I'll still wager that hydrocarbons will be the fuel of choice for transportation even in the "distant" future.

I have no dog in this fight, just laying out the options for a zero emissions mandate world. If there are no such mandates or intrusive policies, then of course we will continue to do what we've been doing, as the market has selected it as the most feasible.