Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Much less than what it takes to make the dinosaur technolgy of an internal combustion engine and what most of those vehicles emit. Do you work for Exxon or something?
Heard this on Paul Harvey News this morning and here's an article about it but Today in Japan Honda Motors rolled out of the assembly line the first Zero Emission Cars as they are headed to Los Angeles.
The FCX Clarity runs on Hydrogen and Electricity and emits only water.
Honda rolls out new zero-emission car - 06/16/2008 - MiamiHerald.com (broken link)
zero emissions? i find articles which describe certain vehicles as "zero emissions" to be misleading.
first off we have the production of the vehicle which i can guarantee you is not emission free.
secondly (most importantly), there is the production of hydrogen which require fossil fuels (cheapest/easiest) or another huge source of energy to release the hydrogen from the oxygen in water.
thirdly, the energy used to transport celebrity wannabe environmentalists is not emissions free!
eroi, storage, safety, transportation are all real obstacles in the way of the hydrogen economy. The Hydrogen Economy
Much less than what it takes to make the dinosaur technolgy of an internal combustion engine and what most of those vehicles emit. Do you work for Exxon or something?
and where exactly do we get the hydrogen? you must work for alchemix, world nuclear assoc, coal lobby, natural gas company, ..........
The small amount of CO2 they emit gets blamed for a lot.
I'm not meaning to start a debate on CO2 or pollution from cars. It is a serious question. If you have tens of thousands of cars driving around emitting water vapor it has to have an effect.
Maybe someone has a more scientific answer or maybe I should start a new thread.
As far as this car is concerned, I think it is great. I love to see the market responses to high oil prices. One or more of these alternatives is going to take hold. I do wish that the hydrogen stations wouldn't necessarily be at gas stations. It would be nice to see Big Oil get some competition from other retailers.
I'm right there with you Niner. This is a serious concern of mine too. 1-100 cars...maybe not a problem, but I'm wondering if we will not end up in the same boat if this becomes wide spread. Most folks hear the news ranting about CO2 and never realize that water vapor is actually the largest contributor to the greenhouse gas effect.
and where exactly do we get the hydrogen? you must work for alchemix, world nuclear assoc, coal lobby, natural gas company, ..........
You can use any source of energy to make hydrogen. As the electrical grid gets cleaner so does the hydrogen production process. If we had 100% renewable energy, all hydrogen production would be emissions free.
and where exactly do we get the hydrogen? you must work for alchemix, world nuclear assoc, coal lobby, natural gas company, ..........
There are various people doing hydrogen from water using solar power. Both in research and commercial industries. Obviously it is costly now, but will come down in the future.
There are various people doing hydrogen from water using solar power. Both in research and commercial industries. Obviously it is costly now, but will come down in the future.
let me put it into words that most people will understand. hydrogen cars are just a smokescreen for the status quo. i am well aware of the fact that we can generate hydrogen using solar/wind/tidal/hydro/any source of energy but in reality if H2 cars ever become a reality, which i doubt, the majority of the hydrogen will come from coal/gas/nuclear (seen that , done that)
so many people have their minds firmly focused on future developments that they ignore what can be done easily today for environmental, economic and political reasons. walk/cycle/transit/smaller car/drive less/drive slower/plan your route/change your work week/pump up your tyres/move closer to work/get an electric car/buy products that don't come all the way from timbuktu/take your own plastic bags/don't buy junk/solar heat your water/geothermal heat your house/insulate/ventilate if it isn't too much trouble
And of course you can not buy one, the car is geared to the Silicone Valley type people and the only option is to lease it for $600 a month. I truely think this is due to the Government allowing Honda making this car a reality, having it on the road but still making sure the other 99.9% of us are still oil dependant. Who or how many of us could afford $600 and then have nothing in the end.
let me put it into words that most people will understand. hydrogen cars are just a smokescreen for the status quo. i am well aware of the fact that we can generate hydrogen using solar/wind/tidal/hydro/any source of energy but in reality if H2 cars ever become a reality, which i doubt, the majority of the hydrogen will come from coal/gas/nuclear (seen that , done that)
so many people have their minds firmly focused on future developments that they ignore what can be done easily today for environmental, economic and political reasons. walk/cycle/transit/smaller car/drive less/drive slower/plan your route/change your work week/pump up your tyres/move closer to work/get an electric car/buy products that don't come all the way from timbuktu/take your own plastic bags/don't buy junk/solar heat your water/geothermal heat your house/insulate/ventilate if it isn't too much trouble
You're missing the point of this. The fuel cell is an engine and may eventually replace the internal combustion engine. Batteries are only a storage medium. These are different things. This car has helped with the advancement of the fuel cell engine.
Being able to have fuel cells that do not emit hazardous pollution means they could be run inside buildings or various locations wherever power is needed. Solar or batteries have to be where enough light is present (or powerlines are available) and extreme conditions don't exist, since batteries don't do well in extreme temperature (which is why cars need heavy duty batteries/heaters for them in cold weather areas). This is not practical at all if you're trying to do just solar and batteries. It will also not help people in distant locations (or undeveloped regions without wiring or sufficient light) where presently they would use internal combustion generators (which would not work well inside because of their emissions, and they are loud).
Fuel cells are not the same thing as battery/electric only based power sources since they function in different ways. It is the internal combustion engine that can be replaced by fuel cells, and it is the internal combustion engine that generates a lot of hazardous pollution. Solar and electric do not work everywhere. What are you going to do if you need backup power for a hospital (or any location) at night after the batteries run out? Fuel cells will be able to do it with no hazardous emissions.
I agree that solar is something that eventually will be great for a lot of power requirements, but it doesn't work everywhere for obvious reasons.
You're missing the point of this. The fuel cell is an engine and may eventually replace the internal combustion engine. Batteries are only a storage medium. These are different things. This car has helped with the advancement of the fuel cell engine.
Being able to have fuel cells that do not emit hazardous pollution means they could be run inside buildings or various locations wherever power is needed. Solar or batteries have to be where enough light is present (or powerlines are available) and extreme conditions don't exist, since batteries don't do well in extreme temperature (which is why cars need heavy duty batteries/heaters for them in cold weather areas). This is not practical at all if you're trying to do just solar and batteries. It will also not help people in distant locations (or undeveloped regions without wiring or sufficient light) where presently they would use internal combustion generators (which would not work well inside because of their emissions, and they are loud).
Fuel cells are not the same thing as battery/electric only based power sources since they function in different ways. It is the internal combustion engine that can be replaced by fuel cells, and it is the internal combustion engine that generates a lot of hazardous pollution. Solar and electric do not work everywhere. What are you going to do if you need backup power for a hospital (or any location) at night after the batteries run out? Fuel cells will be able to do it with no hazardous emissions.
I agree that solar is something that eventually will be great for a lot of power requirements, but it doesn't work everywhere for obvious reasons.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
