Honda Clarity: Mechanical Opinions

[freeferrarisdonotexist]

Having watched the Christmas episode [12x07] a second time, I personally think that the FCX is exactly what cars need now. Running on compressed hydrogen, which is cheaper to extract than petrol, emitting nothing, giving 270 miles to a tank and yet being just as fast and reliable as a normal car. Utterly brilliant- and that's not even considering it was basically a saleable prototype, and a four-door. Think of an Elise, and MX5, a Catherham, or maybe even a Viper, F430, or DB9 with revised and improved versions of that technology- the possibilites are endless.
Plus it would meet both the environmentalist and petrolhead needs at once.

Only thing to miss would be the noise (though I am certain there would be some sort of attachment hooked to the rev counter- it can be done virtually in computer games, and there can be a similar system in a real-life car).

Your thoughts on it?

 

[Spectre]

They already make "engine noise simulators" for ricers.

And yes, I think the Clarity is one of the best ways forward for the automobile. Not the only one - but one of the best ways forward.

 

[Vambeer]

When i first read about the Clarity i was thrilled...At last something REALLY eco and not "Prius-eco". Just need some infrastructure (hydrogen pumps) which is kinda expensive and time consuming. Just like Specter said, not the only but surely one of the best ways forward.

 

[Shawn]

Hydrogen fuel cell technology isn't anything new, everybody knows it's the best and most likely future for automobiles.

Only problem is, they're too expensive. The Clarity might be available from Honda in California, but you can only lease it and it goes back to Honda at the end of the lease term (no buyouts). They are heavily subsidized, so I don't think it's likely for small companies like Ferrari and Aston to use fuel cells until they're quite a lot cheaper.

 

[Spectre]

True, but it's just a matter of ramping up production and ironing out bugs that may appear in real world use, as opposed to the "well, the battery technology will be there in ten years and then the battery-powered car will be truly practical" - yeah, they've been saying "ten years" since, um, the 1900s....

 

[the Interceptor]

I think it's a bit of a chicken-egg-problem. Once the technology gets the ball rolling, prices will drop. Seeing todays battery technology, having your own power plant on board surely is a clever solution. Now we just need to get hydrogen production sorted out and need to equip the petrol stations with it.

"well, the battery technology will be there in ten years and then the battery-powered car will be truly practical" - yeah, they've been saying "ten years" since, um, the 1900s....

Yeah, but since the petrol cars took over, electric car technology was put on the shelf.

 

[Spectre]

The real problem with hydrogen production is providing the electrical power to do it. You could put an electrocracker (device that makes hydrogen from water with oxygen as a waste product) in every petrol station today, but you'd have to power it and that's the issue.

Of course, if you bring a bunch of nuclear reactors online the problem more or less goes away. Since you can't really throttle back a nuclear reactor, you just make your hydrogen at night when demand is otherwise low, or you directly use the reactor to make the hydrogen on site.

 

[the Interceptor]

There are many way to make hydrogen. I am not yet convinced that we go for the high current method. The question is: will the production technologies we have now work on a global basis? Maybe we'll find out that using a different technology will put up better with the large scale than current.

 

[Spectre]

I think it's a bit of a chicken-egg-problem. Once the technology gets the ball rolling, prices will drop. Seeing todays battery technology, having your own power plant on board surely is a clever solution. Now we just need to get hydrogen production sorted out and need to equip the petrol stations with it.Yeah, but since the petrol cars took over, electric car technology was put on the shelf.

Electric car tech, sure, but battery research wasn't.

Or have you forgotten these?

Even today, most of the non-superpowers' subs are battery powered when submerged.

Basically, while battery tech has advanced very slowly over the last century, none of the promised "great leaps forward" in battery energy density has ever come to pass.

There are many way to make hydrogen. I am not yet convinced that we go for the high current method. The question is: will the production technologies we have now work on a global basis? Maybe we'll find out that using a different technology will put up better with the large scale than current.

I am merely considering a tech that is proven, would (theoretically) be the fastest to roll out, and doesn't require any advances in technology or production. (You can build an electrocracker in your basement with a glass bowl, some water, and a battery.)

But yes, there may be an easier or more scalable way to do it. Any way you slice it, though, I think hydrogen is going to be the way to go for vehicles that don't travel a short route and need to go undefined distances.

 

[the Interceptor]

Electric car tech, sure, but battery research wasn't.

Or have you forgotten these?

Even today, most of the non-superpowers' subs are battery powered when submerged.

Basically, while battery tech has advanced very slowly over the last century, none of the promised "great leaps forward" in battery energy density has ever come to pass.

May I just say that I have visited this very boat?

Anyway, advancing technology always goes hand in hand with the application. I am certain that we would have much better batteries today if the combustion engine had never been invented.

I am merely considering a tech that is proven, would (theoretically) be the fastest to roll out, and doesn't require any advances in technology or production. (You can build an electrocracker in your basement with a glass bowl, some water, and a battery.)

But yes, there may be an easier or more scalable way to do it. Any way you slice it, though, I think hydrogen is going to be the way to go for vehicles that don't travel a short route and need to go undefined distances.

It is. A problem (that was also ignored on Top Gear) is that only a petrol-powered car can be easily refilled when it runs out. You won't find a power socket somewhere in the desert, but neither can you put hydrogen in a canister and just fill your tank.

 

[Spectre]

May I just say that I have visited this very boat?

Anyway, advancing technology always goes hand in hand with the application. I am certain that we would have much better batteries today if the combustion engine had never been invented.

To counter that, think of the nigh-unlimited resources available to military research projects. All of the billions of dollars/pounds/marks spent by various governments to find better batteries have pretty much gone nowhere.

I don't think the internal combustion engine ended up affecting the development much at all. Battery energy density is currently a physics problem not an engineering one.

It is. A problem (that was also ignored on Top Gear) is that only a petrol-powered car can be easily refilled when it runs out. You won't find a power socket somewhere in the desert, but neither can you put hydrogen in a canister and just fill your tank.

True, but you can equip a truck with a LH tank and pump and send it out to rescue stranded motorists. You can't exactly do that with batteries. And even with petrol or diesel vehicles, you're still going to have to get a truck or something to come collect you, get you to some fuel and a container (or alternately deliver some to you), and refuel the car out in the desert. All this does is change what the truck brings to your car, since I have yet to see a diesel or petrol producing cactus.

 

[Dogbert]

...but neither can you put hydrogen in a canister and just fill your tank.

You can, it just depends on the canister.

 

[Richmondgal]

I don't know what the fuss is about the amount of electricity that needs to be consumed to make this work properly. Sure, it may ruin the environment, but in the long run, the hydrogen cars will help the environment and hopefully we can make this planet turn back green before you know it. Although, I think our politicians have other agendas to follow...

 

[the Interceptor]

To counter that, think of the nigh-unlimited resources available to military research projects. All of the billions of dollars/pounds/marks spent by various governments to find better batteries have pretty much gone nowhere.

I don't think the internal combustion engine ended up affecting the development much at all. Battery energy density is currently a physics problem not an engineering one.

We'll have to agree to disagree then.

On an interesting sidenote, smaller (= too small for a nuclear reactor) modern submarines are powered by hydrogen fuel cells.

True, but you can equip a truck with a LH tank and pump and send it out to rescue stranded motorists. You can't exactly do that with batteries. And even with petrol or diesel vehicles, you're still going to have to get a truck or something to come collect you, get you to some fuel and a container (or alternately deliver some to you), and refuel the car out in the desert. All this does is change what the truck brings to your car, since I have yet to see a diesel or petrol producing cactus.

I was more thinking along the lines of walking to a petrol station to collect some in a canister. Might be a theoretical setup that doesn't occur very often, but unlike with the electrical and hydrogen-powered car, you at least have the chance to.

 

[prizrak]

To counter that, think of the nigh-unlimited resources available to military research projects. All of the billions of dollars/pounds/marks spent by various governments to find better batteries have pretty much gone nowhere.

I have two points on this.
1) Consumer driven demand generally produces faster improvements than government driven demand. Just look at computers, mp3 players, cell phones, etc... While they may have started as military projects they developed much faster once they hit the stores. Reason for it is the amount of companies competing with each other and relatively quick adoption. In the military adoption times for technology tend to be very slow especially something that would require building a submarine.

2) "Small" subs don't have as much of an issue with space/weight as cars do. It is much easier to work on huge batteries that take up a room than it is on small scale.

I don't think the internal combustion engine ended up affecting the development much at all. Battery energy density is currently a physics problem not an engineering one.

There are a few technologies out there that can help. One of the more interesting ones that I read about is the nanotube Li-Ion. I don't remember 100% what the supposed specs are but I think it was supposed to be able to power an average laptop for 24 hours or something.

Obviously this does not solve the problem but it would help.

My issue with battery powered cars is the fact that you cannot quickly refill them. Only possible solution is modular batteries that can be swapped out for charged ones from the gas station. Of course the problem then is storing a huge amount of batteries that could fit every vehicle and being able to serve a few hundred people that pass through the station at least in bigger cities.

 

[Ice_warmer]

i'm not sure that hydrogen will be the future, there are still some problems to overcome, the most important the lowest energy consuming way to produce H. I see the doors are still open to other kinds of alternatives, though until now, hidrogen looks the best, you can also convert otto engines to use hydrogen but you get half the power of the petrol counterpart

 

[airmenair]

I'd like to know if say the entire world switched to fuel cell powered vehicles what the impact of a large increase in the amount of water vapor released would have? Possibly wetter climates, more flooding, I'm just theorizing here.

On the topic of electric cars. Do you realize the first electric vehicle was produced in the 1830s? There was even a hybrid vehicle invented in 1916. I think there was another invented in the late 19th century to early 20th century that had a greater range than the Chevy volt. Electric cars have sure been on the back burner since Henry Ford started his production machine.

 

[the Interceptor]

I'd like to know if say the entire world switched to fuel cell powered vehicles what the impact of a large increase in the amount of water vapor released would have? Possibly wetter climates, more flooding, I'm just theorizing here.

I asked the same question in the thread about the Top Gear episode with the Clarity. The thinking is correct, but in reality, combustion engines produce more water vapour than fuel cells. Therefore, this is not a problem.

 

[teeb]

I have a question. Presumably all the liquid hydrogen is stored inside the Clarity somewhere in some kind of fuel tank.

Is liquid hydrogen as flammable as gaseous hydrogen? I'm thinking what might happen in a crash or if any kind of fire was involved...

 

[the Interceptor]

I think hydrogen becomes gaseous the moment it leaks from the tank.