[12x07] December 14th, 2008

[DarthBane22]

Simply brilliant episode. 10/10
BTCC piece was very fun and informative (for a yank like me), News was absolutely hysterical. SIARPC was interesting, didnt know Tom Jones was Welsh. Tesla bit was very good. lack of engine note is just eirie. just a bit of a whine. FCX Clarity bit. one of the best pieces ive seen from TG yet. has the potential to be truly impactful. Pay attention world, the future is here. Awards was funny, Will Young joke has run its course though, yall can stop now.

[Spectre]

My thoughts:

BTCC: What Nascar was supposed to be, and somehow managed to wander WAY away from.

News: Yeah, I don't think they really scripted most of thism, it seemed cut short and it was a bit forced through some of the bits. Still good, though...

Tesla: Not bad, didn't mention that Tesla will be coming out with a replacement 2 speed gearbox soon.

SIARPC: Tom Jones. Why did they bother?

Stuntman: The good news is they destroyed another XJ40 - good riddance. The bad news is that they really should retire the Stuntman because he's rubbish, he's not funny, and we always *know* how and why he's going to fail.

Clarity: Excellent - I think they're right about it being the future.

Rating 7/10, mostly because of the worthless Stuntman and SIARPC.

Originally Posted by iam-nobody

If Honda ever make the car for real they should use James line in the ad.
The reason its the car of the future, is because its just like the car of today

The FCX Clarity is being made for real and is in low-volume production now.
Since Honda can't sell them due to idiot legal reasons, they are leasing them. You can have one today in California on a three year lease for $600/month.

That said, this isn't going to be Honda's show stopper. This is just the next to last step towards a fuel cell Accord.

Originally Posted by Holiace

The FCX Clarity is awesome. But it costs a Bugatti Veyron

Once the tech gets into true mass production, it is estimated that a fuel-cell powered Clarity (or Accord) will probably only be $40-50K. If it is $40K, the Volt is truly doomed.

Originally Posted by acabinian

I would, if the FCX saves the oil to allow me to drive a car that makes a glorious noise.

The high-powered (and great-sounding) cars of today, IMO, can't continue to exist if we continue gouging through oil at the rate we are today. As Leno said, cars like you mentioned will be driven, in the future, for fun, as they are intended, while we use cars like an FCX for daily commutes/trips to the shops, etc.

Yup, you got it.

Originally Posted by Jon'sIS

I really liked the Clarity bit. Hydrogen should be the answer. The problem is that it is somewhat difficult to create cheaply and to distribute it across the network.

Not really. It could even be made at home or at the fuelling stations. The real hurdle is the fact that it takes electricity to do so. It's marginal to create hydrogen from water via "hydrocracking" if the electrical power comes from coal, natural gas, etc., etc. If you switch over to nuclear power, hydrogen becomes very, very, very cheap. In fact, if you park your nuclear reactor next to a body of water, you can have it generate power, desalinate water, and generate hydrogen fuel all at once.

Originally Posted by Smagma

Still not quite sold on hydrogen but interesting to see his points on it.

Think of it this way. Hydrogen is a means to get power from the nuclear reactor to your car in a safe form that you can instantly refill for indefinite range.

[alihaig]

Originally Posted by The Chad

It's true you have to recharge the car, and even with a custom setup at home, it'd still take 4 hours to recharge, and that's just too long if you are trying to go on a road trip in the car. But since most peoples' commutes are NOT that long, then there's really no major problem.

I've never quite understood this argument. Sure you don't do long distance commutes every day, but for example I go back to visit my parents about 3 or 4 times a year which is a 300 mile trip. In a petrol or hydrogen car, even the least efficient I can do the whole trip in 1 go, maybe with a stop for fuel on route. With an electric car I have to go halfway and then stop overnight somewhere with a powerpoint in the car park to give myself enough juice to get home. The average driver isn't going to buy a second car for the few times in the year when you do long distances, and at the same time you can't just not make the trip.

[TomCat]

Originally Posted by alihaig

The average driver isn't going to buy a second car for the few times in the year when you do long distances,

The average driver isn't going to buy a Tesla Roadster as their one and only form of transportation.

[iri10]

Overall a good episode (8/10) -- not my favorite of the season, but more than decent enough, with lots of highlights.

The FCX Clarity segment was very interesting. Visually (and even a bit with the musical accompaniment) they seemed to be going for a Koyaanisqatsi vibe, which is appropriate because the Koyaanisqatsi people got a lot of footage from LA. (see here as an example. Skip to about 45 minutes in) http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...=koyaanisqatsi

As for hydrogen itself, we're talking about a lot of infrastructure before that stuff is ready to be a primary mobile fuel source. At the moment we get most of our hydrogen from fossil fuels, which is fine so long as fossil fuels remain abundant. You can get it from straight electricity as well, which is where the infrastructure/capital buildup comes into play. IMO it'll be best if and when we develop commercial nuclear fusion power.

[watto]

7/10.

Found it very mediocre with alot of filler. The FCX Clarity piece saved it.

[JosefCarlin]

Originally Posted by Spectre

Not really. It could even be made at home or at the fuelling stations. The real hurdle is the fact that it takes electricity to do so. It's marginal to create hydrogen from water via "hydrocracking" if the electrical power comes from coal, natural gas, etc., etc. If you switch over to nuclear power, hydrogen becomes very, very, very cheap. In fact, if you park your nuclear reactor next to a body of water, you can have it generate power, desalinate water, and generate hydrogen fuel all at once.

Think of it this way. Hydrogen is a means to get power from the nuclear reactor to your car in a safe form that you can instantly refill for indefinite range.

Great points and you raise some of important issues. All common forms of creating hydrogen from water requires large amounts of energy as does charging the purely electric cars. Creating electricity from coal, gas, or oil at the levels needed to replace all the transportation now used in petrol and diesel engines would require how many thousands of new power plants (that aren't all that better in terms of CO2 emissions) in the US alone?

Even if all those new electric power plants were nuclear what are we going to do with all the toxic waste that lasts for hundreds of years, or the threat from terrorist turning a power plant or two into large "dirty bombs" upwind of LA for instance? If I recall correctly electricity doesn't travel all that well and to be most efficient the power plants need to be located nearby. Good luck with getting those nuclear plants built that are near our most populous cities that are in earthquake zones, near hurricane prone coasts, in the tornado prone Midwest, or in anyone's backyard really. Finally, has anyone studied the effect on our climate of releasing vastly more amount of water vapor into the atmosphere, the environmental and economic impact of building million upon millions of radically new vehicles and converting fueling stations to hydrogen, replacing all the current working vehicles, or the economic costs to the environment of mining just the copper needed for the windings for multiple millions of new electric engines?

The only reason I raise these issues is the ecomentalist have had to scare us to death before society would attempt such a costly and risky energy transformation. Without the hysteria and end times gloom and doom no one would think any of this would be necessary. But then again I am a man-made global warming denier and think the net benefit of this madness might not be anywhere near the costs economically or environmentally.

[sbruaro]

As a long time viewer I found the studio bits hilarious - like the good ol' time.
The Clarity is the way of the future - I really believe so. Like May said, it works like an old car, and the problem of distribution can be solved by converting old gas stations. Would like to see the BMW's hydrogen car though...

[torqueless]

Touring car - awesome. loved it.

News - eh. the gifts thing went on too long...

Old People filler/stuntman - stop this nonsense. i know you put this stuff in here to appeal to a broader, younger? audience...but why two in the same episode...almost made me give up on the episode until i saw the

FCX clarity...which was, in my opinion the best review of any car top gear has ever reviewed...needs more james may car reviews...

i gave a 6/10...but that was in the heat of the moment right after the filler part. now after the fcx. i'd give it a 7

[alihaig]

Originally Posted by TomCat

The average driver isn't going to buy a Tesla Roadster as their one and only form of transportation.

No but the Tesla is basically designed to say "this is what electric can do at its very best". Mass market electric cars will suffer from the same problem, I really believe that you need either a 5-10 minute fill up or at the very least a 500-600 mile range to make it practical.

Apart from anything else, if you are on your commute and run out at work or between work and home, how long would you be stuck to get enough charge for say a 20 mile limp home?

[freefall]

A very good episode. 10. How can you people give it 7 or 8?

Although the V8 shed-built stuff malarkey gets a bit dull, I admit

[Spectre]

I can give it a 7 because Tom Jones and the Top Gear Stuntman were in it.

Anything with Tom Jones in it = -2 points, Top Gear Stuntman = -1.

Originally Posted by JosefCarlin

Even if all those new electric power plants were nuclear what are we going to do with all the toxic waste that lasts for hundreds of years, or the threat from terrorist turning a power plant or two into large "dirty bombs" upwind of LA for instance? If I recall correctly electricity doesn't travel all that well and to be most efficient the power plants need to be located nearby. Good luck with getting those nuclear plants built that are near our most populous cities that are in earthquake zones, near hurricane prone coasts, in the tornado prone Midwest, or in anyone's backyard really. Finally, has anyone studied the effect on our climate of releasing vastly more amount of water vapor into the atmosphere, the environmental and economic impact of building million upon millions of radically new vehicles and converting fueling stations to hydrogen, replacing all the current working vehicles, or the economic costs to the environment of mining just the copper needed for the windings for multiple millions of new electric engines?

Your post contains much hysteria. Allow me to address it in a calm manner.

In reverse order:

You can make electric motor windings from other materials than copper. They're less than ideal, but they work.

Hydrogen does not have to instantly replace all the current working vehicles. The best way for it to happen would be for hydrogen vehicles to be phased in and replace gasoline vehicles as they are retired or traded in. For that matter, we should have a diverse fuelling ecosystem - I think we should also have biodiesel vehicles plus one or two other options available. As we all know, a diverse ecosystem is stronger and more resistant to outside disruptions. (This is in contrast to a forcibly "diverse" company, which is not.)

Considering that you are 1) removing water in the environment, 2) splitting the water into its constituent hydrogen and oxygen atoms by application of electricity, 3) inserting the resulting hydrogen into a tank and then recombine it with oxygen through a membrane to generate electricity and form water again, and finally 4) exhausting the water back out into the environment, I'm *pretty* sure that if you produce the hydrogen locally that becomes a zero sum game. You *might* increase the humidity levels a *little*. Then again, you might not. Even if you do, plants love humidity. And the more plants, the better, right?

We already *have* reactors, constructed in the 1970s and early 1980s that are "are near our most populous cities that are in earthquake zones, near hurricane prone coasts, in the tornado prone Midwest, or in anyone's backyard really". With the exception of one poorly constructed and badly run unit on Long Island, we have never had a significant incident with any of them. In fact, Texas likes nukes so much, we're clamoring to add more reactors to the South Texas Project (the nuclear farm near Houston, right in the hurricane zone) and are looking for more places in the state that we can put them. There are also nuclear reactors in Tornado Alley and out near San Francisco in the earthquake zones. But let's say that you have some cause for concern (which you don't, if you look at how they are designed and run these days). Well, then you look at a "nuclear battery" type reactor, which is a "fail-safe" unit that is about the size of a large van. You dig a hole in the ground, run control cables and power lines to it, and then entomb it in concrete. In 20 years, when the "battery" runs down, you dig it back up and send it back to the factory for service. There are no field-servicable parts inside and there are no powered moving parts. You can put one of these in place of a transmission substation and power a small city, or a good part of a larger one. See the Toshiba 4S design. Good luck excavating one of those and making off with the fissionables in less than a few weeks with a bunch of construction equipment, let alone without someone noticing and shooting you.


Upwind of LA? Um.. in order to be upwind of LA, you have to have built reactors on Catalina Island or put them on an artificial island somewhere out in the Pacific Ocean. But let's say that for some reason you did put a reactor on Catalina Island. Well, since it'd likely be a Westinghouse AP1000, 1) breaching the outer containment vessel won't actually do anything other than cause the thing to shut down and shield the fissionables, 2) you'd need more force than a truck bomb in the first place, and 3) you can't make it into a dirty bomb unless you physically take the fuel pebbles out, attach explosives to them, and then detonate them in city squares. There's no giant rods to provide dirty bomb material in one. Finally, most reactor containment vessels are designed to take a *747* strike and survive intact, so even a 9/11 scenario won't work. If terrorists are going to make dirty bombs, they're going to get radioactive material from Russia or Pakistan, not from a US reactor.

With regards to the nuclear waste problem; we are the only major nuclear power on earth that has a nuclear waste disposal problem because we don't reprocess it and burn it again. With reprocessing, nuclear fuel can be reused over and over and over. In fact, with reprocessing a nuclear fuel rod is 99% consumed with only 1% going to waste. Since Jimmuh Kahtah decided to "send a message" and banned reprocessing in the name of "setting an example for the world", spent fuel rods have been stacking up in storage facilities. If all the rest of the uranium vanished tomorrow, it is estimated that by reprocessing the spent fuel rods we have sitting in storage we could power the entire US and meet current projected energy demands for the next 250 years. That's not a typo. The nuclear waste disposal problem has been magnified by stupid government policies. Everyone else on the planet who uses nuclear power reprocesses. Nobody else has a significant waste disposal problem. Nobody else needs a Yucca Mountain facility. And the irony of this is that the party that complains the most about nuclear waste, and blocks reactors because of it.... is the one that caused there to be a problem in the first place.

[warren]

Originally Posted by JosefCarlin

The only reason I raise these issues is the ecomentalist have had to scare us to death before society would attempt such a costly and risky energy transformation. Without the hysteria and end times gloom and doom no one would think any of this would be necessary. But then again I am a man-made global warming denier and think the net benefit of this madness might not be anywhere near the costs economically or environmentally.

Say what you want about the environmentalists, that fugly brown haze that hangs over every major city on every major continent is very, very real. Cars and trucks make that. You and I breathe it. It makes us ill, and we die sooner that we should.

Never mind the global warming part -- the planet will heat up and cool down regardless of what we do... wouldn't you at least like to see that brown shit gone?

[Mr. Nice]

A+, 10/10, Just on laughs alone!

After browsing through this, it seems that many people hated at least one segment in the show. I can't say that I loved all of it, but it all came together in a rather excellent way. TG Stuntman was better somehow than he has been in the past, even if he did come off as being a bit of a filler piece... I think he has a ways to go, but good going guys! I liked the BTCC stuff, as I have desperately wanted to see some vintage race cars run around the track again. The Tesla review was great, as was the FCX Clarity review (as everyone has said, it was nice to see Leno on the show).

I loved the comedy relief in the studio, great stuff. The Tom Jones interview was good, I think too many people here have a negative opinion of SIARPC, and you couldn't get them to like it if you had two incredibly attractive, incredibly famous women, having lesbian sex on the SIARPC couch!!! That said, I have to admit that, though I paid attention to the SIARPC conversation, my eyes were focused on the woman standing directly behind Tom Jones ! I thought that it was awesome, as Jeremy refers to Tom Jones in several reviews, that he finally got to interview him.

Having said all of this, it was perhaps not my place to be voting as these are all things I have wanted to see on Top Gear.


Great Show! Thanks Guys!!!!

Looking forward to 'Nam on the 28th!!! Merry Christmas! Happy Chanukkah!

Edit: I wanted to add, since it seems that many here are either dimwitted, didn't pass high school chemistry, or both... (sorry to all those with a brain, who did pass high school chemstry). You can make hydrogen with a 9 volt battery and some electrodes. I think I should also add, water vapor is how clouds are formed, good luck on using that to warm the earth.

[awdrifter]

Good ep this week. The BTCC tribute was good, even though I don't follow the sport, it seems pretty exciting from the clips.

The Tesla roadster, I really agree with what Clarkson said in the review. The car is very exciting, it's almost there, but just falls a little bit short.

The caravan jump was pretty funny, I was kinda expecting them to beat Fifth Gear though.

The FCX Clarity, I don't really think that's the car of the future. It takes a lot of electicity to make pure hydrogen, and then you're using that as fuel to make electicity again in the car. That's got to be less efficient than a electric car where you just use the electricity straight to power your car, it's one less conversion to do. If electric motored cars are the future, it'll be in the form of battery powered electric cars. The range and charging problems will have to be solved by using better batteries and more efficient electric motors, not by converting electricity to hydrogen then convert it back to electricity.

Overall, it's pretty good ep. 8/10. And yes, Vietnam special in two weeks.

[JosefCarlin]

Originally Posted by warren

Say what you want about the environmentalists, that fugly brown haze that hangs over every major city on every major continent is very, very real. Cars and trucks make that. You and I breathe it. It makes us ill, and we die sooner that we should.

Never mind the global warming part -- the planet will heat up and cool down regardless of what we do... wouldn't you at least like to see that brown shit gone?

Of course, but is the answer to build more coal, oil, or nuclear power plants in my backyard so LA can have cleaner air? That is just exporting big city pollution to the countryside and I am not sure those folks who live in cleaner environments are going to be all that happy about that.

[freefall]

Originally Posted by Spectre

I can give it a 7 because Tom Jones and the Top Gear Stuntman were in it.

Anything with Tom Jones in it = -2 points, Top Gear Stuntman = -1.

Fair enough, I always though that the stuntman was a shit idea. But it had "Hello!" and shewee (although Charlie Brooker had it first in his programme, and used by Konnie Huq ) and.. well there were enough good bits to give it max for me.

[the Interceptor]

Originally Posted by Mr. Nice

Edit: I wanted to add, since it seems that many here are either dimwitted, didn't pass high school chemistry, or both... (sorry to all those with a brain, who did pass high school chemstry). You can make hydrogen with a 9 volt battery and some electrodes. I think I should also add, water vapor is how clouds are formed, good luck on using that to warm the earth.

I think this was directed at me, so...

Wiki on Greenhouse Gases

When greenhouse gases are ranked by their contribution to the infrared radiation received at the Earth's surface, the most important are:[5][6]

• water vapor, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth. (Note clouds affect climate differently from water vapor.)
• carbon dioxide, which causes 9–26%
• methane, which causes 4–9%
• ozone, which causes 3–7%

[lex]

We are running out of oil, right?

Have you ever thought about how they make hydrogen?

Using oil of course.

And they put more energy into making the hydrogen than they actually get out of it.


So do the math.

Electricity is the only solution. Electric cars. And the electricity coming from tidal and wave power. Like James himself demonstrated in his show.

[Spectre]

Originally Posted by JosefCarlin

Of course, but is the answer to build more coal, oil, or nuclear power plants in my backyard so LA can have cleaner air? That is just exporting big city pollution to the countryside and I am not sure those folks who live in cleaner environments are going to be all that happy about that.

Go back and read my reply to you here. Nuclear reactors produce the least amount of pollution per kilowatt, and if it weren't for idiotic government policy, we wouldn't *have* a waste problem with nukes.

Originally Posted by lex

We are running out of oil, right?

Have you ever thought about how they make hydrogen?

Using oil of course.

And they put more energy into making the hydrogen than they actually get out of it.


So do the math.

Spoken like a truly ignorant hybrid driver.

If you have nuclear reactors, you make hydrogen gas using electricity and water during the times when demand for electricity is low (i.e., at night) since there is no economic benefit from throttling a nuclear plant back. Not from fossil fuels - which is even *more* wasteful than just using the fossil fuel in the first place (unless you have a lot of natural gas sitting around and doing nothing.)