[ecofuse]

I want it and I want it now .

Nick
ecofuse / Published News

[RFL1986]

Hopefully it catches on in California so Honda will have the drive (no pun intended) to start producing and releasing them across the world in time. It sounds like a great car.

[mollyL]

Well, California certainly will be it's acid test. That's exactly where it needs to be tested. My mum drives her Prius in Cali and is very happy with it.

[Lyndsey]

I am really happy to hear that there might be an emissions free Honda available. I also thought I read somewhere that Volvo would stop making conventional cars and only make hybrids and hydrogen cars fron now on. Has anyone else heard this?

[mtrent]

Why is it only being released in Southern California?

[saturnsc]

Originally Posted by tiberiustibz

Listen, many people are completely naive and would love to believe this is the answer to all, it's not. First off, think of it as a glorified EV, battery powered. You must charge it like any other car, accept there's a catch. It has a 50% efficiency cycle. That means, if you charge it with 1 kilawatt, you will only get 1/2 a killawatt out of it. This spells garbage. It's not a solution to the energy problem, as you must put the energy into it. Plus, if it's charged off the grid it would be worse for the environment than driving a gas car.

Think of it this way, instead of burning relatively clean gasoline to power your car, you're burning the dirty nasty polluting coal at the power plant, transmitting it to your house with losses, and then charging the fuel cell, with 50% losses. EDIT: Just for comparison, if you used a lead acid battery (like today's EVs) you would have 95% efficiency.

The result is: this is essentially for honda's stock prices, is not economically feasible, will never be produced, and is general political propoganda. A hoax.

Be careful what you believe. They got all of you apparently.

Originally Posted by mtrent

Wow, I really had no ideal that this was what they were all about. You have really done your research. Thank you so much for your valuable information.

Very good research. Sorry it spoils the parade. To add to it, if you are going to use hydrogen, hydrogen is also a very energy-intensive fuel to make. Are you going to manufacture it from the energy made at a coal fired power plant or a nuclear plant? See my point? This is one of the reasons the nuclear lobbies are so intent on hydrogen, nuclear is the best way to go for manufacturing hydrogen. If you want to go with fuel cells, you also need to manufacture the power they contain, AS FUEL CELLS ARE HOLDING DEVICES AND DO NOT GENERATE POWER THEMSELVES.

[savinggreen]

Originally Posted by tiberiustibz

Listen, many people are completely naive and would love to believe this is the answer to all, it's not. First off, think of it as a glorified EV, battery powered. You must charge it like any other car, accept there's a catch. It has a 50% efficiency cycle. That means, if you charge it with 1 kilawatt, you will only get 1/2 a killawatt out of it. This spells garbage. It's not a solution to the energy problem, as you must put the energy into it. Plus, if it's charged off the grid it would be worse for the environment than driving a gas car.

Think of it this way, instead of burning relatively clean gasoline to power your car, you're burning the dirty nasty polluting coal at the power plant, transmitting it to your house with losses, and then charging the fuel cell, with 50% losses. EDIT: Just for comparison, if you used a lead acid battery (like today's EVs) you would have 95% efficiency.

The result is: this is essentially for honda's stock prices, is not economically feasible, will never be produced, and is general political propoganda. A hoax.

Be careful what you believe. They got all of you apparently.

That's interesting info. Wondering if you have a source for the 50% efficiency of the new battery? If that's the case, that's not good.

Also just a note on the grid electricity comment - it really depends where you live. It is true that there are losses associated with electricity over other sources. Since the energy is not produced where it's being used, it's considered a "secondary source" whereas oil would be a "primary source". Good environmental analyses will take this into account, although they don't all. I suspect this is not taken into account when discussion zero emissions for the new Honda.

And in the case where electricity is generated from clean sources, it is much better than oil even though there are transmission line losses.

If you live in Canada, it's not such a big deal because odds are, your electricity is not coal-based. In fact, Manitoba, Quebec, British Columbia and Newfoundland all get more than 90% of their electricity from hydroelectric sources.

In the US on the other hand, just under 50% of electricity generation is from coal. But even there, it depends where you live.

California, for instance is half natural gas and only 1% coal, although they also buy a lot of electricity from other states.
New York is 13% coal.

On the other end, 93% of electricity in North Dakota, 94% in Kentucky, 96% in Wyoming, and 99% in West Virginia is coal-generated. So definitely electric cars there are doing little if anything for the environment.