Honda FCX Clarity HFCV

[stopcrazypp]

What I don't get... is how can anyone plan the car of tomorrow based on a fuel source that will eventually run out? I'm basing this on the understanding that the only efficient method to produce hydrogen is with natural gas. Yes, as I noted above, hydrogen can be produced using just solar, but my understanding is that is way less efficient than just pumping the electrons into a BEV.

The only plausible explanation is that automakers feel consumers would be more familiar with station based refueling rather than home based fueling and hydrogen does provide station based refueling at the same speed as gasoline. That's always their explanation for not going with BEVs. But as more and more people buy plug-ins and get used to the idea of home refueling that argument is not going to fly.

It's kind of ironic though that hydrogen might actually have to rely on home refueling to make it work. Even if we spend billions to build hydrogen stations, it's only going to be enough to put stations at major highways. It won't be enough to provide a practical replacement for gas stations for daily refueling. So hydrogen cars will likely need some sort of home refueling (natural gas or electrolysis) to work.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

The only plausible explanation is that automakers feel consumers would be more familiar with station based refueling rather than home based fueling and hydrogen does provide station based refueling at the same speed as gasoline. That's always their explanation for not going with BEVs. But as more and more people buy plug-ins and get used to the idea of home refueling that argument is not going to fly.

I am pretty sure this was why Honda went with fuel cells for this particular experiment. Driving the FCX Clarity and re-fueling at a hydrogen station is pretty similar to driving a Honda Accord and re-fueling with gasoline. When the Clarity first went up for lease a few years ago, I found the fast hydrogen refueling pretty compelling.

What changed the game for me, and I suspect what will change the game for others, is that cars are more and more resembling smart phones. I think the Clarity has been around since 2007 or 2008. Cars back then generally did not have big displays unless they had a GPS navigation system. Big screen phones like iPhone and Android were still a bit of a novelty and hadn't yet taken over from Blackberry. Now, multimedia touch screens are working their way down to mainstream cars. And then there is the Model S, which has the ultimate touch screen control so far. Mobile phones can get apps to monitor or control cars. Cars will have apps for their media/navigation systems. As automobiles and mobile phones converge, I think people will not have such a problem thinking of an EV along the same lines as a mobile phone.

Everyone I know plugs their iPhone or Android in at night.

 

[richkae]

The only plausible explanation is that automakers feel consumers would be more familiar with station based refueling rather than home based fueling and hydrogen does provide station based refueling at the same speed as gasoline. That's always their explanation for not going with BEVs. But as more and more people buy plug-ins and get used to the idea of home refueling that argument is not going to fly.

It's kind of ironic though that hydrogen might actually have to rely on home refueling to make it work. Even if we spend billions to build hydrogen stations, it's only going to be enough to put stations at major highways. It won't be enough to provide a practical replacement for gas stations for daily refueling. So hydrogen cars will likely need some sort of home refueling (natural gas or electrolysis) to work.

Don't you think this is really the influence of big oil? They can transition from selling gasoline to selling hydrogen. They are the ones with the most to lose from a switch to electricity. My gut tells me that every FCV program comes out of some back room deals between the automakers and big oil.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Don't you think this is really the influence of big oil? They can transition from selling gasoline to selling hydrogen. They are the ones with the most to lose from a switch to electricity. My gut tells me that every FCV program comes out of some back room deals between the automakers and big oil.

I'm looking at an automaker-only perspective and assuming they have "good intentions" (keeping in mind that obviously profit maximization is their main motive).

The more sinister possibility is they are backing hydrogen because they know it'll take much longer to do practically (assuming it ever happens) and it allows them to continue making as many standard ICE cars as long as possible. Basically it allows them to keep promising and gives them an excuse to get regulators (mainly California) to pare back any requirements.

Of course, the oil companies would greatly prefer hydrogen over BEVs since that keeps them in business. However, I would assume they like biofuels better (allows gasoline franchises to reuse most of their equipment), although right now that relationship has soured (from the fight between the ethanol and oil lobby).

 

[brianman]

View attachment 18855

My eyes were immediately drawn to two things:
1. the door handles
2. the silver line at the bottom of the doors

It seems they like the look of the Model S enough to copy a few design elements.

 

[Zzzz...]

The more sinister possibility is they are backing hydrogen because they know it'll take much longer to do practically (assuming it ever happens) and it allows them to continue making as many standard ICE cars as long as possible. Basically it allows them to keep promising and gives them an excuse to get regulators (mainly California) to pare back any requirements.

I suspect this is really the case. On the other hand I'm not totally dismissing FC, but to FC ever to pick up, they would need to be direct alcohol FC, or even gasoline FC.

Hydrogen ones will never get widespread adoption because of impracticality and high costs of handling and distribution of hydrogen. And when general public would realize that all hydrogen actually comes from natural gas and from coal, the greenish aura around hydrogen will fade away.

 

[GSP]

Don't you think this is really the influence of big oil? They can transition from selling gasoline to selling hydrogen. They are the ones with the most to lose from a switch to electricity. My gut tells me that every FCV program comes out of some back room deals between the automakers and big oil.

I highly doubt that oil companies are pushing H2 at all. Their investment in H2 production and distribution has been almost nil, just a few million dollars. This is just spending as little as possible to get some greenwashing creed. Oil execs have been quoted that they recognize that H2 investments are just a money sink, and that investing in unconventional oil recovery is much better use of capital. They seem much more savvy than automakers, who have invested (wasted) tens of billions of dollars (3 orders of magnitude more than oil investment) into H2 fuel cell cars. I doubt the automakers and oil companies talk much. GM probably talked with electric utilities and EPRI way more than they interact with big oil.

You can tell who the smart investors are, the energy companies are the most profitable on Earth (well, maybe if you exclude Apple), and the automakers struggle to eek out a small margin and stay out of bankruptcy court.

GSP

 

[jerry33]

Don't you think this is really the influence of big oil? They can transition from selling gasoline to selling hydrogen. They are the ones with the most to lose from a switch to electricity. My gut tells me that every FCV program comes out of some back room deals between the automakers and big oil.

I doubt that's what's actually happening in most cases. It's more likely to be the car manufacturers' customers that want this. Car manufacturers' customers are the dealers, not the end consumers. Dealers don't want anything messing with their parts and service revenue stream. They don't like the Prius because it has less problems than a traditional ICE, and they really dislike EVs. FCV lets them have the same amount of service that they are used to.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

Dealers don't want anything messing with their parts and service revenue stream. They don't like the Prius because it has less problems than a traditional ICE, and they really dislike EVs. FCV lets them have the same amount of service that they are used to.

I think it is absolutely true that the dealerships don't want parts and service revenue to decline. However, I don't think it's true that FCVs will require the same amount of maintenance as an ICE.

If you look at the powertrain layout of Honda's FCX Clarity: http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/how-fcx-works.aspx, it is not radically different from an EV. There is a single electric motor, some hardware to control power flow, a small LiIon pack to store energy from regenerative braking, and the fuel cell system. There's no automatic transmission. No oil changes required. There are none of the numerous parts in a traditional ICE, and no exhaust system that can fail an emissions test. I believe that there is a pumping system that feeds hydrogen gas to the fuel cell stack, but there are few moving parts otherwise.

A fuel cell is just a way to store energy. Honda could replace the fuel cell system with a large battery and have a BEV. That's essentially what they did with the Fit EV, which uses the same electric powertrain as the Clarity.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I agree with anticitizen. FCVs don't have much more maintenance than BEVs, so I don't believe dealers are the driving force. I don't think there is much dealer or consumer demand for FCVs given how slowly they are moving even the leased models (not even anywhere near 100 per year).

It's all on the automakers.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

The HFCV push was because they didn't see people going for short-range BEVs. But plug-in hybrids do most of the substitution required, multi-car households can inckude a BEV and then the rest would be a lot easier to meet with biofuels. When HFCVs were originally proposed battery tech wasn't anywhere near its current state.

 

[richkae]

The HFCV push was because they didn't see people going for short-range BEVs. But plug-in hybrids do most of the substitution required, multi-car households can inckude a BEV and then the rest would be a lot easier to meet with biofuels. When HFCVs were originally proposed battery tech wasn't anywhere near its current state.

Who didn't see people going for short-range BEVs? There is only one serious short-range BEV on the market, the Nissan Leaf. The FCV push has been going on long before the Nissan Leaf came to market. The automakers decided on FCVs long before any of them ( Nissan ) ever really tried to sell BEVs.

Even if the Leaf failed completely, I don't think that is any kind of proof that people don't want short-range BEVs.
If the automakers managed to bring a $30,000 Leaf-comparable-but-longer-range FCV to market right now ( and I don't believe they can ), you know how it would do? It would be the biggest failure in the history of failures because there is no place to fuel it.