
Honda's New Hydrogen-Powered Vehicle Feels More Like a Real Car - radiorental
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2015/10/27/hondas-new-hydrogen-powered-vehicle-feels-more-like-a-real-car/?utm_campaign=yahootix&partner=yahootix
======
edent
What on Earth is a "Real" car?

My electric car drives just like a real car - only faster, quieter, and with
less pollution.

90% of the time, my car is parked at home or work - so it can fully recharge
over 3-4 hours. At a rapid charger it will fill up in 30 minutes.

I still don't quite see the point of creating hydrogen, shipping or piping it
across the country, storing it, and regularly stopping at speciality shops in
order to purchase it. We already have a existing electrical infrastructure and
the reality is that most people aren't driving 400 miles every single day, so
don't need to be constantly refuleing.

~~~
IgorPartola
Just curious, how do you know that your car produces less pollution? The
electricity is still generated and transmitted, so it is at least possible
that the energy used to power your vehicle is worse for the environment
because of its source. Also, did you factor in the impact that mining lithium
has on the environment?

~~~
danhak
> Just curious, how do you know that your car produces less pollution?

This data is available:
[http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_01.html](http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_01.html)

Even in the absolute worst case, energy generation from fossil fuels at a
power plant is significantly more efficient than the internal combustion
engine, even after taking transmission and charging losses into account.

In reality, EVs tend to be sold in areas with high renewable penetration. And
about 40% of EV owners have rooftop solar systems.

The biggest argument for EVs in general is that they are fuel agnostic.
Transitioning to EVs right now means decoupling transportation from fuel,
which means the fleet automatically becomes cleaner as we continue to build
renewable capacity and phase out fossil fuels.

~~~
calyth42
[http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/electric-car-
emissions](http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/electric-car-emissions)

Places like Detroit has coal fired plants.

------
Animats
Garages have a big problem: _" Hydrogen collects under roofs and overhangs,
where it forms an explosion hazard; any building that contains a potential
source of hydrogen should have good ventilation, strong ignition suppression
systems for all electric devices, and preferably be designed to have a roof
that can be safely blown away from the rest of the structure in an
explosion."_ (Wikipedia)

Hydrogen storage tanks tend to leak slowly. The molecules are so small that
they diffuse through solid metal.

~~~
existencebox
This is likely an absolutely stupid idea, but in a structure where ventilation
isn't an option, what would be the impact of having a "pilot light" in areas
where hydrogen accumulates? Essentially burn it off before it accumulates to
the point of presenting a significant hazard.

Additionally, (perhaps primarily) if the molecules seep through a sealed tank,
wouldn't they escape an overhang/roof with far more ease?

~~~
beeboop
If the pilot light fails for long time and then is fixed, boom.

~~~
toomuchtodo
And if not boom, you're burned alive by an invisible flame.

------
dhd415
BMW's been developing hydrogen-powered cars for over a decade. One of their
advantages is that the same engine could use either gasoline or hydrogen
making it a much more practical car for a world in which there is not yet the
same distribution infrastructure for hydrogen as there is for gasoline.
Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to get as much press as EVs which have both
serious operational drawbacks (short range, long charging periods, etc.) and
manufacturing costs (lithium batteries, etc).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_Hydrogen_7](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_Hydrogen_7)

~~~
Retric
The energy efficiency is much worse for Hydrogen.

PS: It's actually significantly more efficient to burn crude oil and charge
high mileage electric cars from that than instead of refining oil and then
using an IC engine.

~~~
mschuster91
> PS: It's actually significantly more efficient to burn crude oil and charge
> high mileage electric cars from that than instead of refining oil and then
> using an IC engine.

That might be, yet burning crude oil produces a horrible amount of nasty stuff
- sulphurous molecules turning into acid rain, radioactive trace elements
concentrating in the exhaust...

------
cpprototypes
Hydrogen cars are probably a dead end. Not enough benefit for the
infrastructure costs required. I think the future options will be EV and
synthetic gas. As batteries improve further, EV will have a lot of advantages.
But it will only be available for those who have personal garages. For
everyone else, it makes more sense to create gasoline instead of building an
entirely new hydrogen infrastructure. There is already technology in early
stages that can create gas from just electricity, water, and CO2 from the air.
It seems refining that technology is a much better idea than trying to use
hydrogen.

~~~
smcl
Wait - gas as in gasoline or some other gas (LPG?)

~~~
cpprototypes
Gasoline - Audi is working on the technology
[http://www.audiusa.com/newsroom/news/press-
releases/2015/05/...](http://www.audiusa.com/newsroom/news/press-
releases/2015/05/researchers-produce-first-audi-e-benzin)

The first version requires biomass, which means it has all the disadvantages
of current biofuels. But their next goal is to remove that requirement. If
they succeed, then they will have a process that only needs power, water, and
CO2.

It's early stage technology and investment is probably very small right now.
Why wouldn't it be when oil is so cheap. But someday the oil fields will start
running dry and peak oil will truly come. When oil hits $200, $300 per barrel,
the demand for this kind of technology will be immense. EV sales will increase
dramatically, but many will be unable to use EV due to lack of personal
garages (even Supercharger times are not enough if thats the only way to
charge. And only Tesla has access to that, what about Leaf, Bolt, etc?).

A brand new hydrogen infrastructure doesn't seem to fit anywhere in the
future. It's too expensive and the benefits are marginal compared to gas (a
lot of legacy infrastructure) or EV (an entirely new paradigm using existing
electric infrastructure).

------
hugh4
That's nice, but is there any real advantage to hydrogen over batteries, or
have batteries at this stage left hydrogen in the dust?

Cost? Weight? Overall efficiency? No numbers are given for any of these, but
they've all traditional weakpoints of hydrogen.

Hydrogen also requires a lot of fancy infrastructure, whereas batteries can be
charged (slowly) practically anywhere.

One advantage is that you could refill your tank in a long road trip,
hypothetically, if you found a hydrogen filling station, faster than you could
recharge your electric car. But that's a rare use case.

Anything I'm missing? Or is hydrogen just a zombie technology?

~~~
_rpd
It is very hard for hydrogen to overcome it's 25% grid to motor efficiency
[1]. It means that it will always be significantly more expensive per kWh
delivered to a motor. However, the market may value quick refueling very
highly.

[1]
[http://iqsoft.co.in/images/The%2021st%20Century%20Electric%2...](http://iqsoft.co.in/images/The%2021st%20Century%20Electric%20Car_img_3.jpg)

~~~
avmich
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell#Efficiency_of_leadin...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell#Efficiency_of_leading_fuel_cell_types)

"According to the U.S. Department of Energy, fuel cells are generally between
40–60% energy efficient."

I feel like I'm reading a beauty contest gossip :) . Strong opinions, weak
arguments...

~~~
_rpd
> fuel cells are generally between 40–60% energy efficient

Which is reduced to 25% grid-to-motor efficiency when electrolysis and
compression (required for practical energy densities) are taken into account.
As illustrated in the linked graphic.

Electrolysis is assumed since other methods (e.g., methane reformation)
generally generate greenhouse gases, but there has been some work on algae
bioreactors [1] that might become economically interesting.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_hydrogen_production...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_hydrogen_production_\(Algae\))

------
SideburnsOfDoom
I am surprised that it hasn't been mentioned yet: Elon Musk, who has some
experience in this field and we can also assume has done the math, says that
hydrogen cars are a dead end

[http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/12/3621136/tesla-
el...](http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/12/3621136/tesla-elon-musk-
hydrogen-dumb/)

[http://www.wired.com/2013/10/elon-musk-
hydrogen/](http://www.wired.com/2013/10/elon-musk-hydrogen/)

[http://insideevs.com/tesla-ceo-elon-musk-hydrogen-fuel-
cell-...](http://insideevs.com/tesla-ceo-elon-musk-hydrogen-fuel-cell-
vehicles-are-mind-boggingly-stupid/)

Does Honda think otherwise, and if so, why?

~~~
lazaroclapp
In all fairness, Elon Musk makes electric cars - and, batteries - so he has
every incentive to exaggerate how bad of a bet fuel cells are ;)

I know very little about this debate and what little I know makes me side with
the electric car crowd. But Elon Musk has a hell of a horse in this race and
thus his statements should never be taken as unbiased.

~~~
SideburnsOfDoom
> Elon Musk has a hell of a horse in this race

Tesla is a recent entrant, so actually it may have been the other way around:
Musk looked at all the horses, and worked out that there was a potential
winner before even deciding to enter the race.

Compare with Honda, who have been making Internal combustion engines since the
1940s. If anyone has a pre-existing horse in the race, they do.

------
jessaustin
I wonder why they're using hydrogen instead of ammonia, which is like hydrogen
except better in every way? Ammonia has hydrogen's good properties: not a
greenhouse gas and doesn't produce greenhouse gases, doesn't cause smog,
numerous production methods including electrolysis, easily transported in
liquid form, can be used in fuel cells or in ICEs. However it doesn't
embrittle, in liquid form it's actually denser in hydrogen atoms than liquid
hydrogen is, and due to its agricultural applications there is already an
established distribution infrastructure (in the Midwest, at least).

------
barryhaanstra
So, for cars this looks like a dead technology because batteries are probably
going to win. What about airplanes? They won't be battery powered anytime
soon?

------
halayli
I cannot navigate this page. 4 adsense ads at the top. scrolling broken, and a
photo of the car in the middle.

I wonder how forbes test their stuff.

~~~
mschuster91
> I wonder how forbes test their stuff.

Probably, like any techie with a bit of knowledge, using adblockers...

------
steffenfrost
Best case Fool Cell technology will be as good as battery technology is today.

"Extremely silly" according to Musk.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_e7rA4fBAo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_e7rA4fBAo)

------
mschuster91
I could imagine that a source of hydrogen could be medical institutions -
after all, a hospital consumes large amounts of pure oxygen, and electrolysis
provides lots of it.

------
eip
Japan has been quietly developing Stan Meyer technology. Once they release it
the only competition will be permanent batteries.

------
Mikeb85
This is the real future for EVs. Quick refueling means you can actually take a
proper road trip (at least when fuel stations are built), and it may actually
be practical for a country like Canada (big, sparsely populated). Also it
needs less batteries, which is likely to reduce its ecological footprint.

~~~
tammer
I thought the issue with H was transportation: a critical hurdle for new fuel
technology adoption is safety (as seen in Tesla's quick and overprotective
addition of an armored underbody on the Model S when a few stray stories of
crashes caught flames in the press). Tankers of H hurdling down our freeways?

I feel like range anxiety on full-on EV's will dissipate in the next few years
as we get to 300+ miles on a charge. After that, what's the downside?

~~~
dalke
The dream expressed in the article would be to have high-pressure electrolysis
to produce hydrogen on-site.

I won't disagree if you think that 300+ miles/charge will come first.

~~~
Retra
Electrolysis is a fairly inefficient way to produce hydrogen. If you've got
enough energy to do electrolysis, then you've got enough energy to run a
motor. The only technical reason you'd want to use hydrogen is that you can do
combustion and long-term fuel storage. It would be valuable if you were using
something like sunlight to produce hydrogen, since sunlight can't really run a
car.

