Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology Hardware

Honda Fuel Cell Concept with Home H2 Refueling 337

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the no-smoking-please dept.
It doesn't come easy writes "Honda unveiled their next generation FCX fuel cell concept car, along with a home hydrogen generation filling station, at the Tokyo Motor Show this week. The car has a range of 350 miles (560 kms) using two separate 350 psi hydrogen storage tanks. The tanks use a newly-developed hydrogen absorption material that doubles their capacity without raising the required storage pressure and thus allows the concept vehicle to exceed the DOE's targeted driving range for hydrogen powered vehicles. The home refueling station uses natural gas to produce electricity, heat and hydrogen. Honda estimates that the HES system [will] lower by 50% the total running cost of household electricity, gas and vehicle fuel. As the FCX is a concept car, no mention of when the technology might be introduced in a real automobile or what it will eventually cost, but the advances demonstrated by the car are quite amazing."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Honda Fuel Cell Concept with Home H2 Refueling More

Honda Fuel Cell Concept with Home H2 Refueling

Comments Filter:

  • Great (Score:5, Funny)

    by HeetMyser ( 655524 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @05:29PM (#13830674)
    And just when natural gas is getting so cheap, too....

    • Re:Great (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Manhigh ( 148034 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @05:33PM (#13830708)
      Yeah but fuel cells are much more efficient than combustion, so you'll get more bang for your buck.

      • Re:Great (Score:3, Insightful)

        by SaDan ( 81097 )
        Yeah but fuel cells are much more efficient than combustion, so you'll get more bang for your buck.


        Problem is, if a significant number of people start using this system, demand for natural gas is still going to go up, and so will the prices.

        I love the concept, though. If it's efficient enough to offset the electrical load from the grid, it might be cost effective.

        • Re:Great (Score:3, Insightful)

          by el_womble ( 779715 )
          Natural gas is free! You make crap loads of it ;) You just need to retro fit basement with a sewage management system.

          Rotting food, animal waste, human waste can all be used to generate CH3 and the byproducts are clean water and fertilizer.
      • Yeah but fuel cells are much more efficient than combustion, so you'll get more bang for your buck.

        Got any data to back that up?
        =Smidge=

        • Yes (Score:5, Informative)

          by malsdavis ( 542216 ) * on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @07:21PM (#13831411)
          From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] Fuel cells are electrochemical devices, so they are not constrained by the maximum Carnot cycle efficiency as combustion engines are. Consequently, they can have very high efficiencies in converting chemical energy to electrical energy.

          For starters, theres a lot more too it then that but the Wikipedia article gives the jist.

          Natural gas is also a lot more abundant so isn't as likely to undergo quite the same massive cost increases over the next decade and beyond like petroleum will.

          • Re:Yes (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Smidge204 ( 605297 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @08:25PM (#13831827) Journal
            can have very high efficiencies is very different from are much more efficient. I agree that they are not bound by Carnot, and in theory can have excellent efficiencies, but do they?

            A little searching tells me that the popular type of cell used in automotive applications is the PEM (Proton Exchange Membrane) type. These seem to peak out at just over 50% efficient. Not bad, but a well build IC engine can get into the upper 40's, so "much more efficient" becomes a point of contention.

            Then consider that the PEMFC's output is electricity, which must be put through a motor to drive the vehicle. If we're generous and assume the motor is 90% efficient, you are now on par with a well built ICE powered vehicle...

            This says nothing about the cost of the fuel. Even if you could "generate" the fuel yourself, the primary source of power is still fossil fuels. The only difference is the problem isn't in your back yard anymore. To add insult to injury, the best method to produce hydrogen (energy-in versus yield) is reforming of natural gas (methane) - as the home-refueling station in the article does. Guess what? You'd get more energy if you just burned the NG straight and you're still releasing CO2 into the atmosphere from the reforming process. At least they recover some energy for domestic hot water with their system, so it's not a total waste.

            So again, what data is there to back the claim that this is "much more efficient" than an ICE and that you get "more bang for your buck"?
            =Smidge=

            • Re:Yes (Score:3, Interesting)

              by barawn ( 25691 )
              So again, what data is there to back the claim that this is "much more efficient" than an ICE and that you get "more bang for your buck"?

              Well, when you're talking about total efficiencies, yah, it's probably comparable. But that's not quite the end of it.

              First, that 40% for an ICE is a maximum, and varies over the speed of a vehicle. That's not the same for an electric vehicle. So net, over a trip, you're going to get a solid boost. Yes - this argument falls apart when you talk about a hybrid vehicle. Sure.
      • Compared to what? Burning natural gas in the car? Not many people do that anyway, so it is a moot point. How much energy is lost converting the NG to hydrogen?

        -matthew

      • Re:Great (Score:4, Funny)

        by MrScience ( 126570 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @06:05PM (#13830966) Homepage
        you'll get more bang for your buck
        I hope that was unintentional. :)
      • but only once you have the hydrogen. Hydrogen is not a fuel -- it's a storage medium, and energy is lost when you convert natural gas to hydrogen.

        • Re:That's true, (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Klaruz ( 734 )
          Energy is never lost, it becomes heat. If you live someplace where it's cold, that can be handy.
        • but only once you have the hydrogen. Hydrogen is not a fuel -- it's a storage medium, and energy is lost when you convert natural gas to hydrogen.


          When the fossil fuel reserves run out, it will still be possible to produce hydrogen. I don't think the same thing can be said for gasoline.

          • Oh it may be difficult to produce gasoline, but it's far from impossible. The thing that makes fossil fuels different from hydrogen is that there are already fossil fuels sitting in the ground just waiting to be harvested. However, there are no minable pockets of hydrogen.

          • Re:That's true (Score:3, Insightful)

            by soupdevil ( 587476 )
            for gasoline, but not for biodiesel.

    • Re:Great (Score:3, Insightful)

      by EvilMagnus ( 32878 )
      Yeah. I thought natural gas was actually scarcer than petroleum... or at least, there were less currently exploited reserves of the stuff.

      • Re:Great (Score:5, Interesting)

        by vertinox ( 846076 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @06:13PM (#13831022)
        Yeah. I thought natural gas was actually scarcer than petroleum...

        It is, but we can make methane gas fairly easy with our landfills.

        I think the city of LA in California collects methane from their sewer system... Either way, it is easier to manufacture than oil or bio-disel.
        • Great point. "Natural Gas" = methane, and the world abounds with lots of ways to get methane. Anamel waste, industrial food proccessing waste, human waste, compost, land-fill exc. To harvest this methane would (a) be good for the environment and (b) in the long run, make my car cheaper to run than it is now.

        • Re:Great (Score:3, Informative)

          by OldManAndTheC++ ( 723450 )
          It's called the Hyperion Energy Recovery System. Here is a nice diagram [lacitysan.org] of the sewage treatment process at the plant.

      • Scarce (Score:5, Informative)

        by Wyatt Earp ( 1029 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @06:20PM (#13831086)
        Theres ALOT of petroleum left on Earth in the normal form "Oil", Tar Sands and Shales. Hundreds of years worth at 2000 levels if all the known Shale, Tar Sands and Rock Oil is added up. Theres lots of it left, the idea that it's "scarce" is a fiction, right now the price is high because of speculation, storm damage and a lack of refinery capacity.

        Combustion of one cubic metre of commercial quality natural gas yields 38 MJ (10.6 kWh). Natural Gas import and movement is difficult from a safety and logistics standpoint due to the nature of a tanker full of it and the ports needed. Moving NG through pipes is hard, so the best way is to liquify it and move it then in chilled pipes and on tankers.

        In the US there are between 1,300 and 1,779 Tcf remaining in proven and unproven deposits, theres estimated to be about 5,210.8 Tcf in the world in proven deposits.

        In 2003, world natural gas consumption was 95.5 Tcf. Russia, which consumed 15.3 Tcf, and the United States, which consumed 22.4 Tcf, accounted for 47 percent of the total. Consumption of natural gas is projected to increase by nearly 70 percent between 2001and 2025, with the most robust growth in demand expected among the developing nations. By the year 2025, total world consumption of natural gas is expected to bet 151 trillion cubic feet.

        If there are 5,210 Tcf of NG, at 2003 levels theres about 54.6 years of proven Natural Gas.
        • "Moving NG through pipes is hard, so the best way is to liquify it and move it then in chilled pipes and on tankers."

          Not true at all. NG is transported across the USA all the time in high pressure pipelines as a GAS. Transporting it in bulk from say Qatar would require a tanker. Chilled pipes aren't an option. My propane tank that sits 50 yards from my house doesn't even use chilled pipes.

          Proven reserves does not count a lot of areas where drilling is not allowed but we know there is gas, such as the Artic.

        • Re:Scarce (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Jeremi ( 14640 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @07:22PM (#13831419) Homepage
          Theres ALOT of petroleum left on Earth [...] the idea that it's "scarce" is a fiction


          Sure, if you define "scarcity" in such a way that you only take into account whether or not the substance physically exists. But that's only the first criteria.


          In real life, we have to take into account the costs of getting to it, and the costs of using it. Those costs include the costs of pollution, the political/military costs involved in getting access to the areas of the world involved, costs of transporting the material, and costs incurred by global warming if we burn all that fuel.


          If the sum of all of the above is greater than the costs of switching to and using alternative energy sources (or greater than the costs of simply using less energy), then the wise choice would be to switch away from petroleum.

        • Re:Scarce (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Xyrus ( 755017 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @09:46PM (#13832268) Journal
          "Hundreds of years worth at 2000 levels if all the known Shale, Tar Sands and Rock Oil is added up."

          Except it is more expensive to extract useable oil from these forms. And these might not be conveniently located in a friendly nation, so you have to add in the costs of aggressive negotiations, bribes, regime changes, etc..

          Now, if we are talking proven oil reserves, the top 10 producing countries have a total of 1.092 trillion barrels left according to some quick googling. World oil consumption in 2000, again according to some quick googling, was roughly 75 million barrels a day.

          That gives us about 39.89 years left, if oil consumption rates stay the same. But they aren't. They are increasing quite a bit with countries like China and India rapidly industrializing. So as far as the world's proven oil reserves are concerned, the future is pretty bleak. And this isn't even saying anything about the trillions of tons of CO2 we'd be dumping into the atmosphere.

          Okay, so lets say we have all this oil locked up in other forms. Lets use a nice number like 200 years worth of oil. Well, that would mean that 5.46 trillion barrels of oil are locked up.

          According to the Wiki, there's about 1.6 trillion barrels of oil locked up in the world's oil shale. That'd buy about another 59 years. However, to get the oil out requires a process called pyrolisis, which as the name implies requires heat (450-500 C). That takes a bit of energy to do, but that's only the beginning of the problems. The byproducts are extremely toxic with various carcinogens thrown into the mix for good measure. It also requires a 3 to 1 ratio in water. On the plus side, shale becomes economical at barrel prices above $40.

          Alright, were at 100 years worth of oil. Now lets see what else there is. Tar sands. Again according to the great Wiki, we've got an estimated 5.25 trillion barrels locked up. That gives 193 years more, burning at 2000 levels. And again we've got more bad environmental impacts. But with rising oil prices, it's becoming to economically feasible.

          That's a grand total of 252 years of oil at 2000 levels. Hundreds is a little much, but technically you are correct.

          Now to throw some cold water on this party. According to the DOE, even if we extract all this lovely oil, at the current growth rates the high estimate is that production will peak around mid century, and fall off rather quickly, dropping to almost nothing by early next century. So there goes the "hundreds of years". If we're lucky, we'll make it to the next century.

          What about the environment? Trillions upon trillions of tons of toxic wastes will be generated from extraction of hard oil reserves. Even in-situ methods aren't clean. And then there's the tremendous amount of water needed to process this stuff.

          And last but not least, our old friend CO2. At 83.2% carbon and an average weight of 1 metric ton per 7.3 barrels, burning all that oil would add about 1 trillion metric tons of CO2, not including the CO2 that comes from everywhere else and our diminishing flora that reclaims it. That's enough to raise the CO2 content of our atmosphere (assuming a 100km cieling) by .24 kg/m^3. The density of air at sea level is 1.2 kg/m^3, thus yielding an atmospheric content of about 20% CO2, or about the same as when the dinosaurs roamed the planet.

          Back then, the average planet wide temps were around the century mark (deg F), enough to comfortably bake most modern day species, including ourselves.

          At this point, I guess I don't even need to mention the other noxious gases that would constitue significant fractions of our atmosphere at that point. Eventually, the planet would recover after we die off, as it always recovers from such disasters.

          Even if we had trillions of barrels just ready for the taking, I'd push for renewable energy. Burning oil for the next 100 years or so is not only completely stupid, but also incredibly dangerous (from a human perspective, the planet could really care less).

          But you were right about the oil.

          ~X~
      • Yeah. I thought natural gas was actually scarcer than petroleum...

        Unless... we first convert something else (e.g. oil) into natural gas, which introduces inefficiency because of the conversion... oops.

    • The hydrogen economy is an exciting prospect, but where will the hydrogen come from? Not natural to be sure. The process creates CO2 emissions! I've always thought the federal government might fund a huge nuclear plant to for trial H2O => H2 + O2 conversion. How much nuclear power would it take to establish the hydrogen economy?

  • Wait wait wait... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @05:31PM (#13830688)
    So, it relies on natural gas to produce the hydrogen, but they say it'll cut costs? Have they seen the prices of natural gas lately, not to mention their volatility? And isn't natural gas just as scarce as regular gasoline?
    • Actually natural gas is worse then regular gasoline. Gasoline comes from oil and is easy to transport. Just load up a tanker with oil and send it over from the middle east if you don't have enough in north america. Even gasoline can be transported as is currently happening. It just can't be stored forever. natural gas needs to be pressurized and cooled in order to transport it on ships so very little is moved this way.

      The way the wells work also differ. Oil comes out fast at first, then slows and yo
    • Worse [wikipedia.org]. The volatility isn't as bad as many think, however. Probably no worse than gasoline, really.

    • Re:Wait wait wait... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ReverendLoki ( 663861 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @05:51PM (#13830869)
      At least in my area of the midwest US, there are lots of natural gas pockets in the ground, and the average person can, local regulations not withstanding, drop a small well and have an ample supply. All it takes is a simple filter system to make it useable. So, for some of us anyways, this is a potential boon. If I'm not mistaken, the number of people who can drop an oil rig and a refinery plant in ther backyard is a lot less...

      Still, for the rest of the population, this is just moving from one type of scarce fossil fuel to another. We've all heard about the gasoline substites (ethanol, corn and soy based fuels, greasel, what have you), but is there much R&D on synthetic or renewable natural gas substitutes?

      • Re:Wait wait wait... (Score:2, Informative)

        by modecx ( 130548 )
        Heh, yeah, that may be true that there's tons of the stuff out in the midwest... But that assumes you, as a land owner have mineral rights to your land. It's pretty rare anymore for the government to not own the mineral rights, so that's something to be aware of. Even on large tracts of farm and grazing country, it's likely you have no right to anything below the surface of the earth. If the BLM comes knocking they will not be pleased--and since you have to get permits and what not to drill, they're almo
        • Most PRIVATE property has mineral rights that can "run with the land" or be held seperately by anyone who had owned the property in the past. If you look at the deed to my property in Texas, I do NOT have mineral rights, they belong to the original land owner of 100 yrs ago and thier hiers and in some cases creditors. Public property mineral rights are held by the Government, but not always the US Government. In Texas, a lot of the land is owned by and for the School systems.
      • but is there much R&D on synthetic or renewable natural gas substitutes?

        Actually, yes. Several landfill operators have installed gas capture devices and retrofitted their heavy equipment to run off of methane. Many have found that the landfill was capable of producing enough methane to sustain its own equipment, and even after those landfills close to new trash, they will be able to continue to produce methane. Other general biomass conversion projects exist along these lines (using certain crops or
        • Other general biomass conversion projects exist along these lines (using certain crops or cows or whatnot).

          So are you suggesting we could indirectly power the Honda from dead cats, via a bio-diesel stage?

          Note to mods: this is humour.
          Note to cat lovers: no cats were harmed in the making of this post.

      • Still, for the rest of the population, this is just moving from one type of scarce fossil fuel to another. We've all heard about the gasoline substites (ethanol, corn and soy based fuels, greasel, what have you), but is there much R&D on synthetic or renewable natural gas substitutes?

        With billions of people being served everyday, I bet McDonalds can solve this problem ^_^

    • At least in New England, many homes already use natural gas for heating and cooking; my home has a gas heaters, hot water heaters, dryer, and stoves, so it's a logical start for a home system. The odd thing for me wouldn't be having a gas appliance, it would be putting the car in the driveway.

      Of course, natural gas is a limited resource, but this is really more of a transitional step until there are hydrogen fueling stations, allowing individuals to start using hydrogen-powered vehicles using only existing

  • What about the stickers and the exhaust tip? (Score:5, Funny)

    by filesiteguy ( 695431 ) <perfectreign@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @05:32PM (#13830699)

    ...so if I put some "powered by Honda" stickers around it, lower it, and add a cool exhaust tip, will it be fast just like a Civic?

  • Why it won't be used for a while... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MosesJones ( 55544 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @05:34PM (#13830713) Homepage

    This is a great advance but its unlikely to be massively successful until the point at which Gas Guzzlers are taxed at a rate based on their environmental impact. In otherwords until Gas is $6+ a gallon (about the UK price) there won't be the driver in the US to adopt green technologies, thus meaning there won't be the huge volumes of purchases to make the technology really affordable.

    For anyone who wants to understand what I mean, go to Honolulu airport and look at the pollution "clocks".
    • How did this get modded insightful? Cars right now are being taxed on their environmental impact. The more gasoline you burn, the more you pay. The reason that there isn't widespread acceptance of this technology is because there isn't a widespread availability of this technology. Once this technology becomes available, and is mass produced to the point that the price is reasonable, THEN large numbers of people will move towards it.
      • It's insightful because gas taxes are not based on environmental impact. They are based on road costs and other factors related to how much income the government wants to get from gas sales. Basing taxes on environmental impact would likely increase the taxes, because the current costs don't come close to covering cost of the environmental damage from burning the gas, and they don't come close to a goal of making gas guzzlers to expensive to run. The factors that are now making SUV's unfavorable are not gas taxes, but gas wholesale prices plus retail markup.

    • I disagree. We're already buying [bbc.co.uk] hybrids [csmonitor.com] in large amounts. And this is despite studies showing that savings might be less than the consumer expects. From The Detroit News [detnews.com]:

      Various analysts estimate it can take up to 10 years for savings at the gas pump to equal the extra cash a hybrid costs.

      It doesn't need to get to $6/gal. It's already relatively high. Thats good enough to force some change.

  • Chicken-n-egg problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Erioll ( 229536 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @05:35PM (#13830730)
    This is probably the only way to solve the chicken-n-egg problem of hydrogen cars. Sure you won't be able to drive it cross-country for a while, but for burning around town, it should work, and then once enough of them are out there, THEN the commercial stations will follow.

    Still, as others mentioned above, with high natural gas prices, I can't see this helping, though if it doubles as your home heating, hopefully the amount of natural gas per household increased useage isn't much.

  • Mercedes Benz (Score:5, Informative)

    by Spy der Mann ( 805235 ) <spydermann.slash ... m ['mai' in gap]> on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @05:36PM (#13830735) Homepage Journal
    Mercedes-Benz also has a prototype. Their concept car [nyud.net] will be available for production around 2015, using a fuelcell+lithium ion combo.

  • How about wind or solar power? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @05:37PM (#13830751) Homepage
    I'd be really interested to know how well these 'chargers' could be adapted to work with other sources of power for charging the cells. I mean if we had to buy like 3 or 4 cells in order to have them charge for like 3 or 4 days to get that 300+ miles, then okay fine... but to burn yet another fossil fuel is kinda like picking your evils... though I suspect other gases could be used but again, the method of extraction or manufacture almost always leads back to fossil fuels. How soon can we get into a source that is significantly more "free"?

    • Re:How about wind or solar power? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by koreth ( 409849 ) * on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @05:51PM (#13830863)
      Agreed -- my house is partially solar powered (I feed power to the grid by day, draw from the grid at night) and I'd want to just plug my hydrogen generator into the wall and make use of the locally-produced electricity during the day.

      Still, one thing at a time. This is just a prototype for now and I'm glad to see people working in the right direction.

      • Electrolysis of water is easy enough to do if you want to utilize some of that excess day time power. I have often wondered if it would be worth houses with solar cells using the spare day time power creating hydrogen and then using the hydrogen with a fuel cell at night. I suppose it all depends on how efficient you can get the hydrogen production. Since power in the day costs many times what it does in the evening and night time in many places it probably isn't economically viable.

    • Where I live I'm able to buy solar and wind power directly from the grid. Running a hydrogen car from solar / wind would simply be a matter of me buying an electric hydrogen generator.

      The advantage of Honda's system is that it's re-using the heat from hydrogen generation that's normally wasted. It's similar to buying a boiler for your home that happens to dispense gasoline as a by-product.

  • Well, that's cool.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by trailerparkcassanova ( 469342 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @05:39PM (#13830771)
    but it still doesn't fly.

  • Snow! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tribbin ( 565963 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @05:41PM (#13830783) Homepage
    I can imagine, that when it freezes, your pimped & overtuned H2 car leaves behind a trail of snow when you burnout to impress bystanders!

  • My ideal car! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ajiva ( 156759 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @05:41PM (#13830794)
    What I want is a electric/diesel car. Something more along the lines of 200hp and 50+mpg! While the newer Prius, Civic, etc hybrids are nice and all they are just way too underpowered. By swapping out the gas engine with a diesel one you can get better gas mileage AND better performance.

    • Re:My ideal car! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by zorkmid ( 115464 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @05:47PM (#13830840)
      Get a VW Jetta Turbo Diesel (TDI). My 2003 model gets ~53MPG running on BioDiesel.
    • How on earth is the Prius underpowered?

    • Re:My ideal car! - Your missing the point of HP. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @06:14PM (#13831029)
      What I want is a electric/diesel car. Something more along the lines of 200hp and 50+mpg! While the newer Prius, Civic, etc hybrids are nice and all they are just way too underpowered. By swapping out the gas engine with a diesel one you can get better gas mileage AND better performance.

      So tell me again why you want 200hp? 200hp has no intrisic value, it can only be used to accelerate you faster or to give you higher top speed. Most of these cars can do 80 or 100mph (unless they are computer limited), so lets talk acceleration.

      Cars with internal combustion engines need all that power since these engines have very low toque at low RPMs, so need to rev up, then shift, and shift again, to keep the torque on. The beauty of electric motors is that they have max torque at 0 rpm. When you are accelerating from 0 with your 200hp pocket rocket, you are actually only using a fraction of that horsepower. Of course if you have a 300hp engine, that fraction is higher, but you are not really using all 300 horses.

      Back when GM was promoting the EV1, I drove one at a demo event at Caltech. Those things were rockets off the line. The computer kicked in at 30 mph and limited acceleration to reduce energy consumption. They found that people were racing around town and getting very low distance between charges. But from 0-30, the EV1 would easily beat a 300Z.

      So what you really want is to either hack the computer to not limit your acceleration, or perhaps a larger electric motor or higher current draw capability. But a 200hp diesel would be a complete waste, expensive, heavy, and slow.
           

    • Re:My ideal car! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by timeOday ( 582209 )

      While the newer Prius, Civic, etc hybrids are nice and all they are just way too underpowered.

      The diesel hybrid does sound nice, but even current hybrids needn't be underpowered. The Accord hybrid is the fastest Accord ever. Compared to the all-gas Lexus RX330, the hybrid RX400h [intellichoice.com] SUV goes 0-60 0.4 seconds quicker (7.3 seconds), 38% more gas mileage (28 mpg), and costs only 10% more (except demand is high, so the going price might be higher).

      It's kinda sad to see the Japanese wiping the floor with GM,

    • It exists! (Score:3, Informative)

      by SydShamino ( 547793 )
      And you could have one for about $75,000, according to the developer when I talked to him at a trade show a few months ago.

      http://l3research.com/vehicles/enigma/specificatio ns.htm [l3research.com]

      For those too lazy to follow the link:
      Peak Power: 250 HP (combined)
      Acceleration: 0-60 MPH 7 Seconds
      Fuel Economy: 80 MPG est
      Maximum Range: 650 Miles est. (8 gal)
      All-electric Range: 20 Miles

      It uses a 200 HP electric motor (!) to provide the major "thrust", with a 60 HP, 80 MPG diesel engine (running at peak efficiency RPMs) to rech

    • Re:My ideal car! (Score:4, Informative)

      by budgenator ( 254554 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @08:07PM (#13831700) Journal
      200Hp diesels are semi-tractor class engines, it's a big ass engine. Diesel/hybrid doesn't make as much sense as gas/hybrid because a diesel's torque peak happens at a much lower rpm so peak effiecency is very close to peak torque; also diesel have the advantage of being able to run at much less than ideal stichiometric air/fuel mixtures so they breath a full charge of air and adjust power by controlling fuel flow which gives them much better off load effiecency. lean out a gasoline engine too much and you'll get great millage until you burn a hole through your pistons (about ten Miles).

      • Re:My ideal car! (Score:3, Informative)

        by dusanv ( 256645 )
        Semi-tractor engines? LOL. Check this [volkswagen.co.uk] 225 hp (330 lb torque) turbo diesel engine out. They put that engine in a chassis as small as the Audi A4 and in that configuration it does 0-62 mph in 7.7 secs. Diesels make a lot of sense for hybrids but Japanese were never big on diesel engines. Personally, if I were buying a car today I'd get a Jetta TDi (1.9 liter) because it has is priced decently, has good fuel economy in town, absolutely awesome economy on the highway (unmatched by Prius/Insight) and is a proper

  • Mazda RX-8 gas/hydrogen car (Score:5, Interesting)

    by timmyd ( 108567 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @05:41PM (#13830795)
    Here are some pics of the Mazda RX-8 that has two tanks: the hydrogen can be filled on one side, and regular gas on the other side.

    http://autos.goo.ne.jp/motorshow/gallery/car/mazda /gallery4.html [goo.ne.jp]

    there is an article here in japanese: http://autos.goo.ne.jp/motorshow/news/tms/article_ 75008.html [goo.ne.jp]
    • I'm glad Mazda stepped it up. Rotary (aka Wankel) engines are actually better suited to hydrogen combustion than cylinder-based ones. In fact, IIRC, rotary engines can produce more horsepower running on hydrogen than on gasoline. On the downside, however, they still produce NOx emissions, something that fuel cells are much, much better at.

  • not 350 psi. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Fix ( 38616 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @05:52PM (#13830876)
    The tanks do not only hold 350 psi it is 350 atmospheres. 15 psi per atmosphere sea level so that would be 5250psi.

  • dumb idea (Score:3, Interesting)

    by fredistheking ( 464407 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @05:52PM (#13830879)
    Why not just power the car with natural gas to begin with? This has to be way more efficient since you skip an entire energy conversion.

    I was in Europe recently where people were retrofitting natural gas tanks on their cars for about $300. No real modification was needed for the motor only the tank had to be connected to the fuel injection. Economically it made sense since the price of gas was about $6 a gallon and this allowed a savings of approximately 50% over the cost of gas.

    In the US, however, natural gas is not really economical so I don't think it would save you any money.

    • Taxis do it in Canada, the conversion is much more expensive though, I bet they're being subsidized (more) where you were in Europe.

      You lose some trunk space, but it's old technology:

      http://www.ngvontario.com/own_options.html#after

      Very boring stuff :-)

    • Because this method of the conversion from chemical potential energy to electricity to kinetic energy is way, way more efficient than the conversion of chemical potential energy to heat to kinetic energy.

    • Re:dumb idea (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MemeRot ( 80975 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @06:22PM (#13831101) Homepage Journal
      Well, right now in the US we have 300 million cars that only run on gasoline.

      Let's say we take your idea and everyone replaces their car or retrofits it to use natural gas.

      Great. Now, in ten years we'll have 300 million cars that only run on natural gas, and we'll be running out of natural gas. And have to retrofit our cars for something new.

      The point is to power cars with something that can be generated from ANY initial power source: wind, solar, nuclear, coal, natural gas, etc. Hydrogen and electricity are the two things that fit the bill.

      The benefit being you have a neutral source for powering your car, and as different methods of creating that source become cheaper, you don't care and don't have to rip apart your car to use it. You don't care whether the hydrogen or electricity came from oil, gas, coal, nuclear, solar, wind, whatever - it goes in your car and you drive.

      If oil spikes in price, producers will be switching their hydrogen or electricity production to other forms. You the consumer won't be hit with a huge price jump.
      • Besides the source and price flexibility you describe, using hydrogen as fuel brings true independence: it is feasible to produce all the hydrogen needed for a car at your residence. My roof at home has ample area to generate all the power my car needs, even with today's not-very-efficient solar cells and using not-very-efficient electrolysis, with energy left over to sell or donate to my neighbors. Once installed, I would never have to buy fuel except for long trips. It would take about 10 years to pay for
  • Aren't the power stations supposed to be much cleaner and more efficient at producing electricity? If Honda has some new uber-efficient method for turning natural gas into current, why not use it at the power stations?
  • The SYMPTOM here is high energy prices.

    The way people are trying to fix all our woes is by treating the SYMPTOM, i.e. making energy costs lower and searching for alternative energy resources.

    The SOLUTION however is to simply use less. If we thought more and were less lazy, oil etc. wouldn't be a problem.
    • http://www.kunstler.com/mags_diary15.html [kunstler.com]

      I'll just let him do the talking. This is an excerpt from October 10.

      The Federal government has loaned the oil companies crude from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The SPR contained 700 million barrels of crude when the hurricanes hit. The US uses 20 million barrels of oil a day, of which we produce altogether about seven million barrels ourselves. It is unclear how much oil is coming out of it now, but the last time a president tapped the SPR (Clinton) one mill

    • mod parent up (Score:3, Informative)

      by cdn-programmer ( 468978 )
      Another dumb moderator on the loose! Damn I had points yesterday.

      Yes - we do need to focus on using less energy. The issue is that the North American natural gas supply peaked in 2001. We have already lost at least 1/3 of the Nitrogen fertilizer industry as a result.

      We can get hydrogen mind you from the coal gas method that was used around the turn of the century. Essentually we put some coal in a bucket - slap the lid on it - heat it up and inject steam at high pressure and temperature.

      We have decent a

  • Self Service (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @05:57PM (#13830910) Homepage Journal
    I am amazed that Honda is cutting the gas stations out of the industry with this prototype. I guess decades of better gas mileage has left Honda and the gas stations less than natural allies anyway. With American automakers edging so close to bankruptcy after cannibalizing their mid-decade sales with 2002 "dumping" prices, and relying on gas guzzling SUVs for most of their profit, maybe Honda is just ahead of its time. More of that car buck is now in demand for fueling up, and the cozy old relationships might just be coming apart.
    • Gas stations don't make money on gas anyway. Their profit comes from convenience items (food/coffee/newspapers/etc.)
      • The companies that own the gas stations make the money - that's who's getting cut out. The stations franchisee, too, but that's not what we're talking about. Ultimately, it's the gasoline marketers, like Exxon, who get cut out. Of course, they sell natural gas to the local gas company, too, but that's wholesale. Oil companies would have to convert their gasoline operations to manufacture methane from petroleum for wholesale, which isn't nearly as profitable as retailing gasoline.

  • If you are interested the hydrogen is probably produced by steam reforming [wikipedia.org] natural gas. This is pretty cheap and easy way to make pretty pure hydrogen for fuel cells. The problem is that it produces carbon monoxide as well which is a poison to most fuel cells. IIRC commercially the hydrogen is purified by filtration through a sheet of red hot palladium. Presumably in this set up they are using some sort of catalyst to oxidize up the CO to CO2.

    While the car is impressive the really impressive technology he

  • As usual, our favorite Japanese English-language newspaper has complete coverage of the important parts of the story:

    http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/photospecials/graph/ 051019motorgals/ [mainichi-msn.co.jp]
  • Isn't it the case that the domestic natural gas supply could be "cut" with H2 in the same way that gasoline is sometimes cut to make "gasahol"? In general, what would happen to a house full of gas appliances if you send H2 down the natural gas pipes? If there was no or minimal impact on appliance operation, then isn't the best way forward to work on centralized reforming of methane and sending the resulting hydrogen down the existing pipeline infrastructure?

  • Misinformed People (Score:4, Informative)

    by kahrytan ( 913147 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @07:20PM (#13831396)
    I see many people really don't understand Hydrogen fueled cars. Natural Gas is one of many sources used to produce Hydrogen but currently is the cheapest method to do so. It can also be made from petroleum, coal, various chemical reactions, and from biomass (landfill waste, wastewater sludge, and livestock waste). Solar and Wind can also be used to produce hydrogen.

    Now to address hydrogen safety for those who might worry about it.

      1. Hydrogen combusts at 550 degrees celsius. Gasoline will combust long before Hydrogen does.
      2. Hydrogen disperses rapidly because it is lighter. Ignition is unlikely.
      3. When Ignition takes place, It burns upward and quickly.
      4. And tanks that are used to store hydrogen have been subjected to firing .357 magnum at it, detonating a stick of dynamite next to it, and subjecting it to fire at 1500 degrees F.

      You can find useful information at:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen/ [wikipedia.org]
    http://www.hyodrogennow.org/ [hyodrogennow.org]

Slashdot Top Deals

The moon is made of green cheese. -- John Heywood

Close