• 42
The other day, Honda's chief executive officer, Takanobu Ito, said that:
It's starting to look like there will be a market for electric vehicles. We can't keep shooting down their potential, and we can't say there's no business case for it.
For most people, this might look like an innocuous – perhaps even safe – statement from the CEO of a major automaker. It is, after all, the age of the electric car, and no one wants to be left behind. But to people who've followed the electric vehicle (EV) scene for, say, a decade – like our friend Paul Scott – Ito's statement was kind of like a lightening bolt to the eyes. Why? Because it signals a sort of last grasp (in Scott's mind) of the company's insistence on fuel cells. He writes:
Honda, along with Toyota and GM, were the leaders in the fuel cell race, but even though the Honda Clarity fuel cell is a beautiful car, it's clearly proving to be problematic to commercialize. That's why Ito's announcement of the viability of plug in cars is so welcome. ... Ito will be there to introduce them himself. This underscores the importance of this announcement since it's the first time the CEO of Honda has come to this show for an announcement of any kind.
There will certainly continue to be fuel cell projects and announcements from the OEMs – the electric car era can, of course, inccude hydrogen vehicles – but Scott is right to remind us just how big a shift this is for Honda, and also that the LA Auto Show later this month, "will be the last to which the general public cannot drive in mass produced EV."

[Source: EVs and Energy]


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 42 Comments
      • 2 Months Ago
      Honda got blindsided by Nissan. I don't even think they were really serious about hydrogen either. Honda is an ICE engine company. From seadoos to bikes, planes (Google "HondaJet"), chainsaws and automobiles, that's what they do.

      Paul Scott is right: Honda even *admitting* that EVs are plausible is a huge deal.
        • 2 Months Ago
        I think they were serious. They probably got suckered into thinking it was real when George Bushed the technology on behalf of his oil buddies that needed an 'alternate' fuel which really was a natural gas based fuel that the oil companies would provide. Either that or as a red herring FUD to slow down EVs.
      • 2 Months Ago
      Everyone knows that Hydrogen cars are at least 10 years away (since 1980 lol).
        • 2 Months Ago
        What are you talking about Fuel Cell cars are great... (for me to poop on!)
        • 2 Months Ago
        No, there only 5 years away ... and they always will be
      • 2 Months Ago
      @Dan:

      You wrote: "which patents are you talking about?"
      Well, a while back, it was well reported that they had many patents on Synergy Drive:

      "Toyota Builds Thicket of Patents Around Hybrid To Block Competitors"
      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124640553503576637.html

      "Since it started developing the gas-electric Prius more than a decade ago, Toyota has kept its attorneys just as busy as its engineers, meticulously filing for patents on more than 2,000 systems and components for its best-selling hybrid. Its third-generation Prius, which hit showrooms in May, accounts for about half of those patents alone."

      ----------------------

      @Snowdog
      Good point about the whole package. It's true that they have never been able to match the Prius with anything else, even a Lexus.

      • 2 Months Ago
      it's a change but it's a slow change. the big automakers are amazingly dense at understanding the obvious. at this pace it will still take decades. 4½ years have passed and only pathetic programs have started except for partial credit to Nissan. the Volt is so poorly done and overpriced that it´doesn't even count. all it has really served is pacification and PR damage control for GM which you can tell from the absense of new plugin models by GM.
      just look at how obtuse toyota has been and the prius might make you think toyota was at the forefront of electrification but they have fought against electric drive as hard as the others...
      they are spectacularly unintelligent, at least in this area.
        • 2 Months Ago
        which patents are you talking about? they are using old nimh batteries and the power split device is patented by paice and they pay substantial royalty for it. there is nothing in the prius worth holding on to for toyota.
        lithium based series hybrid cleans house and if you wanted to hold on to the pointless prius type hybrid you could easily do that too without paying toyota a dime afaik. I think the reason so many buy toyota's tech is that they are even less intelligent and think it's a good system worth buying
        • 2 Months Ago
        well I'd say the prius is so good because other cars are even worse. the prius is not fantastic, it's that the others are not even trying.
        the prius ICE though has at least decent efficiency but I'd imagine even that could be comfortably beaten if someone actually tried.
        none of this is really difficult. they are just not trying. they fail well before trying.
        • 2 Months Ago
        @nick.

        Toyatas system has a small functional edge. But any system that can switch between full EV/ICE and combine them has the same potential.

        The real reason Toyota turns in the best numbers, is the whole package. Good Hybrid system, best aerodynamics and most efficient ICE. Outside of the Prius, Toyota has no better results than any other hybrid player. The Prius is so good because every link in the chain is so good.



        • 2 Months Ago
        @Dan:

        You wrote: "which patents are you talking about?"
        Well, a while back, it was well reported that they had many patents on Synergy Drive:

        "Toyota Builds Thicket of Patents Around Hybrid To Block Competitors"
        http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124640553503576637.html

        "Since it started developing the gas-electric Prius more than a decade ago, Toyota has kept its attorneys just as busy as its engineers, meticulously filing for patents on more than 2,000 systems and components for its best-selling hybrid. Its third-generation Prius, which hit showrooms in May, accounts for about half of those patents alone."

        ----------------------

        @Snowdog
        Good point about the whole package. It's true that they have never been able to match the Prius with anything else, even a Lexus.
        • 2 Months Ago
        Nick, I'm sure they have many patents for disgusting legal reasons but probably none of merit.
        • 2 Months Ago
        You're totally right on this. However, I don't think they are stupid.

        The patents they hold on hybrid technology gives them a virtual monopoly on 50+ MPG hybrids. Nobody can come close without licensing their design.

        So it's natural for them to try to milk this technology for as long as possible without really investing in it. The Prius could have a plug and better battery, but then they would make less profits.
      • 2 Months Ago
      "Honda, along with Toyota and GM, were the leaders in the fuel cell race, but even though the Honda Clarity fuel cell is a beautiful car, it's clearly proving to be problematic to commercialize."

      Naturally, I have to disagree with this assessment. The commercialization of FCV is continuing at a measured pace, as the makers and the infrastructure providers slowly ramp up.

      A recent study clearly indicates that not only is a hydrogen infrastructure equivalent in cost to a BEV charging infrastructure on a per-car basis, but that the total cost of ownership for the two (BEV and FCV) will be nearly equivalent.

      "WASHINGTON, DC–A comprehensive new study entitled “A Portfolio of Power-trains: A Fact Based Analysis” concludes fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) are ready for commercial scale-up, and essential to meeting our energy security and environmental needs. The report was released in Brussels Monday, November 8.

      The analysis by the respected international consulting firm McKinsey & Company — sponsored by a 31-member public-private coalition — states that significant penetration of both fuel cell and battery electric vehicles (BEVs) will be needed to build a sustainable transportation system by 2050 — and that FCEVs and BEVs could be cost-competitive with internal combustion engines (ICEs) as early as 2020.

      The study also concludes that costs for a hydrogen infrastructure are comparable to installing a charging infrastructure for battery-electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. The report finds that a dedicated hydrogen infrastructure is “justified and doable.” McKinsey called the initial infrastructure investment “relatively low.”

      http://www.europeanclimate.org/documents/Power_trains_for_Europe.pdf

      I will stress that it's not "either / or". BEVS are coming, and so are FCVs. They have different pros and cons, and they address different consumer market needs. They are both needed, so they will both be made.

      "BEVs, PHEVs and FCEVs have significant potential to reduce CO2 and local emissions, assuming CO2 reduction is performed at the production site. They play a complementary role, with BEVs ideally suited to smaller cars and shorter trips and FCEVs to medium/larger cars and longer trips. PHEVs can reduce CO2 considerably compared to ICEs on short trips or using biofuels, depending on availability. The energy and CO2 efficiency of ICEs is expected to improve by 30%.

      Medium/larger cars with above-average driving distance account for 50% of all cars, and 75% of CO2 emissions. FCEVs are therefore an effective low-carbon solution for a large proportion of the car fleet. Beyond 2030, they have a TCO advantage over BEVs and PHEVs in the largest car segments"

      I'm glad Honda is studying all potential technologies, and planning to produce low-GHG vehicles of all flavors.
        • 2 Months Ago
        "Neither of us are authorities."

        Glad you admit that. That's exactly why I'm willing to listen to the evidence presented by experts and authorities, the very same experts that you'd prefer to ignore.

        "Meaning their conclusions are come solely from the companies/organizations involved in the study. And VAST majority of those companies/organizations are Pro-Hydrogen companies with substantial financial stake in a hydrogen economy."

        At least you can admit that they reason they are authorities is because they're the one's with the proprietary knowledge. You don't know, and I don't know, but it is their business to know. And this report is based on that knowledge.

        "No, we have negative opinions because of the facts of hydrogen. (eg. infrastructure costs, inefficiencies, etc.)

        You've already admitted that you're not an authority, yet you reject information from the authorities. Your negative opinions are not based on understanding...

        If you prefer to imagine that there is a financial conspiracy afoot, fine. Retreat to your dark corner, and keep ignoring the progress that is happening.

        Snowdog

        "So are you interested in the best solution, or promoting FCVs?"

        I don't know what the best solution is. Really, it depends upon the question... At a glance, I don't have any issue with converting NG to diesel, except for the obvious GHGs and other pollutants that are inevitably emitted form ICEs. Certainly, many people here on ABG would have a major issue with your suggestion, for the simple fact that it relies upon natural gas, whereas at least hydrogen has the potential to made from entirely renewable sources.

        I'm very happy to promote FCVs, just as I'm happy to promote BEVs and hybrids of all types. Unlike you, who has an obvious dislike for Honda's CR-Z, which is in the very least a step in the right direction for the sporty car crowd...
        • 2 Months Ago
        "Medium/larger cars with above-average driving distance account for 50% of all cars"

        What a meaningless statement! "Medium" is relative, and 50% of anything is "above-average". The Leaf can be considered an average size car, and it's range is further than the average daily driving distance.
        • 2 Months Ago
        1) We both agree they "are coming"... we just disagree on whether or not it will be a good thing or not.. and in what significance. Because technically, they are "here"... just not for sale, only lease.

        2) Yes, people can read for themselves.
        But there is a difference between you posting a 68 page document and regurgitating the conclusion at face value...
        And me quoting directly the ridiculous assumptions that lead to the laughable conclusions.

        So people who don't have time to read 68 pages, might believe the conclusion they came up with... and then start spreading those lies to others.

        But when you put it in context by revealing their assumptions... most people can see that 50%/50% home charging / Level 3 charging DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!

        And without that assumption, the conclusion you spouted off... falls to pieces.

        -------------------------------------------------

        "I stand by the source"

        Kinda like a band playing while Titanic sinks. It is very noble of you to stand by your H.M.S. Titanindinburg...



        • 2 Months Ago
        LOL. Yeah, right. If the total cost of ownership were equal then they'd be selling FCVs now.

        And the infrastructure costing the same . . . yeah right. I'm sure they have some bloated figure for the EV infrastructure whereas in reality pretty much no infrastructure is required since people will charge at home 95% of the time.

        But keep flogging that unicorn.

        PS. Snowdog lists another good point.
        • 2 Months Ago
        FCV are going to remains a curiosity at best. They will sell a few to rich oddballs who live near an H2 station.

        But no infrastructure is coming. You still won't be able to take your FCV on a road trip. You will be confined to a radius of your station.

        When we start having an energy crunch, we won't be wasting our time with silly schemes to dress up NG in new clothes and deplete it faster.

        As I type this CSI is doing a episode called "Fracked", I guess the producers watched Gasland.
        http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1558250/
        • 2 Months Ago
        I never said this study was by experts or authorities either. Yes, the companies involved have more technical knowledge than either of us combined. But I argued that their greed influences this study more than their knowledge does.

        Here why I have a problem with calling these people "experts" or "authority"

        They are only qualified to speak about Hydrogen infrastructure... yet they make conclusions based on wild assumptions about charging infrastructure.

        It is only one side of the story! They are not experts in that field. And in fact, they are competitors. So they feel compelled to exaggerate the cost of a charging infrastructure.

        Companies, even companies with "proprietary knowledge" in their fields, are biased and cannot be considered "experts" in a competing industry.

        This study is just another attempt by the Hydrogen Lobby to inflate the positives of hydrogen while diminish the charging.

        --------------

        And still.. you have not refuted any of the technical points I made about that "study". I guess you find no merit in their assumptions either.
        • 2 Months Ago
        pg 14

        "All conclusions are based on proprietary industry data"

        Meaning their conclusions are come solely from the companies/organizations involved in the study. And VAST majority of those companies/organizations are Pro-Hydrogen companies with substantial financial stake in a hydrogen economy. And it is from Germany.

        ---------------------------

        The key assumptions that are flat out wrong. And the crux of your statement:

        pg 7
        "The cost per vehicle for rolling out a hydrogen infrastructure compares to rolling out a charging infrastructure for BEVs or PHEVs. The costs for hydrogen retail and distribution are estimated at €1,000-2,000 per vehicle (over its lifetime), including distribution from the production site to the retail station, as well as operational and capital costs for the retail station itself."...

        "Current costs for an electric charging infrastructure range from €1,500 - €2,500 per vehicle. The higher end of the range assumes 50% home charging (investment of €200 - €400 per charging station) and 50% public charging at €5,000 for a charging station that serves two cars (€10,000 in the first years). Potential additional investment in the power distribution networks are not included, but could be material, depending on the local situation. In contrast, once the territory is covered, no further investment is needed in hydrogen infrastructure – regardless of the number of cars – due to the fast refuelling time. As the number of FCEVs increase, it also benefits from the economies of scale."

        ------------

        There is so much wrong with these statements, I don't know where to begin.

        1) Only 50% of charging will be done at home ??? doubleyouteeEff man?
        And the other 50% will be done on $14,000 Fast Chargers??
        No mention of the much cheaper Level 2 chargers that will be installed in most public and commercial lots.

        *** This pretty much warps the numbers tremendously because they are saying that only two vehicles will be able to use a fast charger at a single time... and for hours... so the entire cost of that fast charger must be shared amongst a small number of BEV owners. Total BS! Cheating with numbers. ***

        2) They assume a very low price per FCV for hydrogen infrastructure because they are also assuming the year is closer to 2025 when their are millions of FCVs around to share the cost of those multi-million dollar fueling stations and h2 production and logistics cost. But apparently during that time BEV drivers would still be using fast chargers for 50% of their charging and sharing each charger amongst a small group of BEV drivers.

        3) "no further investment is needed in hydrogen infrastructure – regardless of the number of cars"

        ** More BS! Production, compression, and transportation of H2 DOES increase "infrastructure costs" ** ...as more FCVs hit the road.

        -----------------------------

        The almighty dollar makes people overlook the obvious. I know you, LTAW, have investments in both FCV and BEV technology... but when you hear optimistic news about something you have invested $ into... people tend to ignore the critical thinking part of the brain.

        The almighty dollar (or Euro) also makes companies and organizations more willing to fudge the numbers. And this, my friend, is TRIPLE FUDGE ROCKY ROAD! Tread carefully.
        • 2 Months Ago
        Here you are. This fills in the same gaps that advocates(this bogus "study") claim we need Hydrogen for (long distance, bigger vehicles/trucks).

        http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2010/10/audi-says-2-a3-tdis-performed-flawlessly-1000-miles-on-rendiesel-synthetic-fuel.html

        You can make good Diesel from the same feedstocks that you make Hydrogen from.
        You have a choice:

        Take NG and convert to Hydrogen, build out $Trillions in distribution infrastructure, then build all new fleet of expensive Hydrogen cars.

        Or take NG and convert to Diesel and use vehicles/infrastructure we already have.

        Can you spot the boondoggle?
        • 2 Months Ago
        Even more meaningless, you can also convert Natural Gas into a viable diesel substitue that already works in all the infrastructure and "medium" cars/trucks that we already have.

        Converting NG into H2 is just a boondoggle.
        • 2 Months Ago
        You don't even need to convert the natural gas into diesel, you can just uses it in the same engine using small amounts of diesel as an ignition source.
        • 2 Months Ago
        Yep, that essentially is a list of Hydrogen advocates. It's a joke.
        • 2 Months Ago
        "I trash incompetence, waste and boondoggles. Hence my dislike of the CR-Z, Corn Ethanol and the Hydrogen Hoax. "?

        I knew there was something about you I liked!

        The idea of converting natural gas to diesel is interesting, though I'm curious about the efficiency involved. If there was too much energy loss in the process, it might not be practical.

        Another better potential alternative to converting natural gas into H2 fuel for a fuel cell would be to use compressed natural gas in a "direct natural gas" fuel cell - the efficiency would be much higher, the amount of natural gas used would be much less, the fuel costs far less, and since the volumetric energy density of CNG is 3x greater than the volumetric energy density of compressed H2, the range could be greater and/or the tank size smaller.

        Of course that all assumes a reasonable future cost for fuel cells.
        • 2 Months Ago
        Hydrogen made from renewable is just a bait and switch game.

        95% of US H2 production is steam reformation of NG (releasing just as much GHGs as burning it) the other 5% is largely from other industrial fossil fuel reformations/cracking. Some tiny sub 1% fraction is impractical renewable window dressing like the solar powered H2 stations that the H2 advocacy groups display. The reality is that H2 is just repackaged fossil fuels. If we are using fossil fuels we can save a lot of steps and use them in an infrastructure we already have. Rather than creating an insanely expensive, unneeded one.

        How is disliking the CR-Z because it is an incompetent/inefficient design an issue? Bigger heavier sedans like the Fusion Hybrid are both faster and get greater MPG. It should be obvious that if you just dropped the Fusion drive-train in a smaller car it would be even faster and even more efficient. The CR-Z is just sadly incompetent.

        If you follow my posts then you might notice regularly praise the Prius because it actually delivers the efficiency. Or small cars that deliver 40MPG with no hybrid system like the new Fiesta Eco model.

        I trash incompetence, waste and boondoggles. Hence my dislike of the CR-Z, Corn Ethanol and the Hydrogen Hoax.
        • 2 Months Ago
        "2) Yes, people can read for themselves.
        But there is a difference between you posting a 68 page document and regurgitating the conclusion at face value...
        And me quoting directly the ridiculous assumptions that lead to the laughable conclusions."

        The absurdity of your comment astounds me.

        I posted the link to the article, so that people might read it for themselves and come to their own conclusions based on the strength of the evidence.

        Your prejudice leads you to make statements which only mask your ignorance. Snowdog does much the same:

        "But no infrastructure is coming."

        Simply put, Snowdog is wrong. Of course, he can continue to pretend it isn't, but he's only deluding himself.

        No need to reply further gentlemen - your arguments are baseless, and only serve to deny the truth of what is actually happening in the real world.


        FCVs will be produced alongside BEVs, and both are needed.
        • 2 Months Ago
        @LTAW

        I know how much you hate it when I question the motives of either yourself or for-profit companies.

        So I am ready for your "how dare you question their integrity, they are legitimate and well-respected... blah, blah" speech.

        ****
        These are salesmen, plain and simple! And these "studies" are merely propaganda and marketing tools at their disposal. Regardless of how much they polish it.
        • 2 Months Ago
        LTAW: "FCVs will be produced alongside BEVs, and both are needed"

        As already pointed out above, FCVs are not needed.

        The faulty reasoning of your industry marketing piece is that you need FCVs for larger Vehicles and Long distance. Total nonsense because your "study" simply excludes any solution that doesn't support the pre-defined conclusion that FCVs are required. Better solutions like converting NG into Synthetic diesel (see link I posted above).

        To address the legitimate concern of Long range trucks, I will present the legitimate choices:

        Take NG and convert to Hydrogen, build out $Trillions in distribution infrastructure, then build all new fleet of expensive Hydrogen cars/trucks. Now you can move trucks long range on NG feedstock.

        Or take NG and convert to Diesel and use vehicles/infrastructure we already have and accomplish the same thing.

        It should be obvious that the Diesel conversion Solution will save $Trillions of dollars and still address the same long range concerns, using the same feedstock.

        You have be extremely biased to say the sensible solution is to $Trillions creating a new parallel infrastructure, and new FCVs, to accomplish the same ends as our already existing fleet and infrastructure.

        So are you interested in the best solution, or promoting FCVs?
        • 2 Months Ago
        "I posted the link to the article, so that people might read it for themselves and come to their own conclusions based on the strength of the evidence."

        Well... you also quoted some of their paragraphs to emphasize your point of view... which is exactly what I did.

        --------------

        Funny how you keep calling it prejudice. Do you know what that word even means? After years of studying and researching the topic... it is no longer prejudice. It is judgement. Neither of us are authorities. But we CAN make "informed judgments" which is the opposite of "prejudice".

        We don't have negative opinions of H2FCVs based on stereotypes, rumor, myth or other forms of ignorance... (eg. hating H2 because it explodes easily).

        No, we have negative opinions because of the facts of hydrogen. (eg. infrastructure costs, inefficiencies, etc.)

        It is not Prejudice.. but informed judgments.

        --------------

        Other than your 1st post, you have not refuted any of my points regarding the "study"... just name calling so far. And I suspect you never will. Since it is clear that the conclusions were based on wild assumptions that cannot be defended.
        • 2 Months Ago
        "So I am ready for your "how dare you question their integrity, they are legitimate and well-respected... blah, blah" speech."

        Watching you all try to debunk the study is entertainment enough.

        I stand by the source; feel free to ignore it if you don't like what they say. OTOH, let people read the study, and come to their own conclusions regarding the data.




        FCVs are coming. There's nothing wrong with accepting that simple little fact, and those who continue to biatch obviously have an ignorance/ prejudice all of their own.
        • 2 Months Ago
        @Chris M

        Regarding a NG fuel cell... David Martin and I have tossed the idea around for a while now. But we have only seen low power fuel cell stacks. a few hundred watts. A LOT more surface area is needed for methane compared to H2 to produce an equal amount of power.

        Yes, they can be scaled up.. but the size of the stack gets to be too big to fit in a car. Great for stationary operations though.
        • 2 Months Ago
        I think we ALL know how these "studies" are simply a reflection of the hopes and dreams of who is paying/who is commissioning the study.

        This is the same for wildly optimistic BEV claims (eg. 50% of new cars will be Plugin by 2020, etc).

        It is total B.S. and doesn't pass the common sense test either.

        The list of people contributing to this "study" reads like a who's who of "trying to make some money off selling a hydrogen economy. With only a few exceptions like Nordex, a wind turbine company.

        I am not seeing ANY charging infrastructure companies!

        And the automakers on that list are of the same group that pledged to start making FCVs as soon as someone paid for the infrastructure.

        *Reminding you again that the Letter of Understanding from those automakers said that they would be ready by 2015 IF (big IF) the hydrogen fueling infrastructure existed in sufficient density by that time. If no one builds it. No automaker will mass produce a FCV.

        ---------------------

        ""
        The following companies and organisations participated in this study:

        Car manufacturers:
        BMW AG, Daimler AG, Ford, General Motors LLC, Honda R&D, Hyundai Motor
        Company, Kia Motors Corporation, Nissan, Renault, Toyota Motor Corporation,
        Volkswagen

        Oil and gas:
        ENI Refining and Marketing, Galp Energia, OMV Refining and Marketing GmbH,
        Shell Downstream Services International B.V., Total Raffinage Marketing

        Utilities:
        EnBW Baden-Wuerttemberg AG, Vattenfall

        Industrial gas companies:
        Air Liquide, Air Products, The Linde Group
        Equipment car manufacturers
        Intelligent Energy Holdings plc, Powertech

        Wind: Nordex

        Electrolyser companies:
        ELT Elektrolyse Technik, Hydrogenics, Hydrogen Technologies, Proton Energy Systems

        Non-governmental organisations:
        European Climate Foundation

        Governmental organisations:
        European Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking, NOW GmbH
        ""
      • 2 Months Ago
      Hey Honda, if your fuel cell is so awesome then put it on a trailer and maybe I will rent one to keep the juice flowing on my long EV trips.
        • 2 Months Ago
        Stationary fuel cells are actually quite decent. They use inexpensive ceramic stacks that directly turn Natural gas into electricity, at very good efficiency.

        Skipping all the nonsense about converting NG->H2 and then using expensive rare metal fuel stacks.


        • 2 Months Ago
        It is very, very, likely that your BEV in the future will be powered by stationary fuel cells.
      harlanx6
      • 2 Months Ago
      Entirely predictable, not to mention late, late, late.
      • 2 Months Ago
      Hydrogen for cars, is essentially rearranging the deck chairs on the SS Fossil fuels.

      It is the most expensive energy conversion scheme ever devised (Converting natural Gas into H2) to create one of the most impractical automotive fuels (ridiculously difficult to store/transport) ever devised.

      This is potentially the most epic boondoggle of all time.
        • 2 Months Ago
        "It is the most expensive energy conversion scheme ever devised"

        On a completely unrelated note, I just spoke with a guy who wants to build giant floating islands covered in wind turbines. The electricity produced would be used to electrolyze water into Hydrogen, which would be used in the Haber-Bosch process to produce ammonia, which can be shipped by conventional methods to load centers, boiled off to release the Hydrogen, and then run through fuel cells.

        All that to get the capacity factor of wind farms up from 35% to 50%.... before losses.

        THAT would be the most expensive energy conversion scheme ever devised.
      • 2 Months Ago
      Hydrogen powered cars= continued scam

      1. Pay the man money to drive just like gasoline cars.
      2. Don't pay the man to drive electric cars.

      I pick number 2 and screw big oil and their interest. Been raped by them for way too long.

      • 2 Months Ago
      Actually, Honda already has a terrific EV--the Clarity. The electric drive motor and regenerative braking are already built in; just throw away the silly fuel cell and the hydrogen tank and replace with a li-ion battery (call Tesla if you need one quick), Roomier and better-looking than the Leaf, a Clarity EV would hit the sweet spot of the auto marketplace where the Accord and Camry now rule.
    • Load More Comments