“I’ve driven lots of cars. I’ve wallowed like a Russian oligarch pig in the gorgeous mud of a $1.6-million Bugatti Veyron. I’ve spit tailpipe fire across the midnight Mojave at the wheel of a Lamborghini. I’ve brushed gape-mouthed peasants aside with the chrome cowcatcher grille of a Rolls Royce Phantom. Yet I have never driven a car half as advanced, as futuristic, as blind-with-science as the Honda FCX Clarity hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle … It is a fact that the FCX Clarity is the most beautiful car to ever wear the big H on the nose. It’s just gorgeous, a big garnet-red teardrop falling from the cheek of the future, a sweet stanza of robot-written poetry.” - Dan Neil, LA Times
.
Reviews of the hydrogen fuel cell-powered Clarity have been rapturous, even from writers who are hydrogen skeptics, as the quote above shows. Neil goes on to give his (negative) opinion on the viability of this technology, but unfortunately it is just that. For a few rebuttals to his incorrect conclusions, check out the NHA and the CARB responses on our resource page. As always, add your voice to the mix.
To help understand why writers have been so taken with the Clarity, BTI put together a comparison table [utilizing third-party data] to see how the Clarity measures up on performance and fuel efficiency, but also on more mundane measures such as rear seat and trunk room. The Clarity is exceptional - because it’s not exceptional. There are few compromises, and by several measures, the Clarity is at the top of this class. Notable are torque, which is expected of an electric drive car, but also efficiency and speed. Clarity achieves a combined city-highway rating of 72 miles per gallon (equivalent) which is up to three times the others. Toyota, Daimler and GM are also making exceptional strides on fuel cell vehicles.
A few months ago, we were lucky enough to be able to drive the Clarity ourselves and according to our own Bud DeFlaviis, “I’ve driven a number of hybrid and fuel cell electric vehicles, but this was one of the most highly refined I’ve seen so far. Hats off to companies like Honda and GM for giving the public an opportunity to experience these state-of-the-art technologies. If more people were able to see and feel these vehicles first-hand, consumers would understand why the automakers continue to focus on fuel cells for propulsion and range extension for future plug-in hybrid platforms.”
Thanks to our intern, Remy Dollet for putting this chart together!
|Back|
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
March 3, 2009 @ 11:23 am
Jennifer says...
Great chart!
March 4, 2009 @ 9:19 am
Brynne says...
UPDATE: Check out Honda’s response to Dan Neil’s article here.
March 5, 2009 @ 10:39 am
Jim Horwitz says...
I sent the following to the Boston Globe after it printed Mr. Neil’s article:
My name is Jim Horwitz, [FuelCellIntel@comcast.net] and I’m an independent Fuel Cell industry analyst. I’m trying to offer my comments and yes, even corrections to Dan Neil’s article in Today’s Globe accompanying the Clarity specs. I, too, have driven the Clarity and was absolutely blown away (figuratively as hydrogen is considerably safer to handle and store than gasoline or natural gas, albeit harder). And I, too, have to defend fuel cells to the naysayers by explaining that pure automotive power is not an ideal application for conventional PEM fuel cell technology. No matter which more advanced FC technology is used, High Temp PEM (>140°C) or SOFC perhaps, in the end for cars, other applications are either much closer to commercialization or as in the case of critical back up and indoor fork lift power, have reached the true commercial stage with superior performance and paybacks in the 2-3 year range versus lead acid batteries or diesel gen sets.
But the future for automotive fuel cells is not dependent on the now classic PEM technology and hydrogen fueling stations featuring hydrogen produced by classic electrolysis or steam reforming of NG. Note that many of the current H2 stations are in California. Some of the ones in the Palm Desert and Sacramento area which have been used for FC bus trials the last few years have solar power to build hydrogen, and there is now technology to create hydrogen from water through a simple solar thermal process without using electricity as a middleman. Regardless of how hydrogen is produced, whether via wind, solar, or perhaps even off-peak nuclear, it is a versatile energy storage medium which allows a vehicle to be rapidly refueled (3-5 minutes currently) for 300+ mile (Toyota) trips. More important, in addition to companies like CT-bases Proton Energy producing high-efficiency electrolyzers and Billerica-based Nuvera who is developing an on-board reformer for liquid fuels, SOFC (solid oxide fuel cells) generally work with any liquid hydrocarbon from ethanol and methanol to diesel and JP-8 jet fuel, as well as biogas. Volkswagen is the only carmaker now using HT PEM technology for its fuel cell which is potentially much cheaper to implement than conventional PEM and can use somewhat impure hydrogen which is much less costly to produce. This is an article from yesterday on 16 FC Chinese-built Passats being delivered to Sacramento http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=11213. Also note the future is for fuel cell plug-in hybrids where a smaller fuel cell can charge a smaller battery and the two can work in conjunction. These vehicles also have the potential of producing power to be fed into the grid when demand is high – an interesting point. Nissan announced yesterday [http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage9583.html ] it has actually implemented a small SOFC in a hybrid configuration, with the SOFC running off gasoline.
So Mr. Neil, please study up on the industry a bit more before you jump to conclusions. It has struck me that rapid-charging reliable, light weight safe batteries at a reasonable price that can provide more than the 3 mile Prius range or the 40 mile Volt range are actually father off than automotive fuel cells. But they can and will work together. Anybody can email me for a copy of my article on fuel cell - battery hybrids (all applications) in this month’s UK Batteries+Energy Storage Technology magazine.
March 5, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
Philip Block says...
Hello you people out there who are interested in Fuel Cells. I have posted two emails that I sent to Mr. Dan Neil of the LA Times and his reply to my first email. I hope you will add to what has been said.
Phil,
How do you figure the electrochemistry has flattened out? Five years ago a kWh of battery storage was about $1,500. Today, it’s more like $700. Also, any fuel cell car has a bat in it – the clarity, for example, has a lithium-iron bat – so whatever the future of FCV’s they will still rely on bat tech.
Meanwhile, Renault and Nissan are gearing up to build over 100,000 BEV’s in Japan and Europe in the next five years. Never be practical? Tell that to Mitsubishi, which is building thousands of these vehicles in the next 2-3 years.
Meanwhile, production FCV’s? Uh, anybody? 200 from Honda by 2012?
The history lesson is not dispositive. Yes a battery electric car – and thousands were sold before 1920 – has been difficult, and now it’s not. Your lecture is just rhetoric. People tried to break the sound barrier, and they didn’t, until they did.
Look at the negatives for FCV’s: billions in upfront infrastructure; the cost of the fuel cells themselves – somewhere in the neighborhood of about $400/kW in prototype form; in production of >500k, estimates are around $92/kW – still way above the $45 to $50 of an ICE; the well to wheel losses; the maintenance of the Kevlar-wound tanks, the expense of 700-bar infrastructure. It just goes on and on.
BEV’s are much more likely to displace a useful amount of oil many years before FCV are even close to being commercially plausible.
Thanks for the note,
Dan Neil
Hello Dan,
First, I would like to thank you for your reply to my email.
Second, I would like to clarify my statement that “the curve for battery technology has essentially flattened out.” I was not talking about cost. Yes, the price of batteries has dropped due to increased production and developments. My statement was based on the electrochemistry– the watts/pound (watts per pound). Where the watts/pound increase is now small, and will remain small for batteries, compared to Fuel Cell development. Remember, battery technology has been around for over 150 years and the increase in watts/pound has been excruciatingly slow and is now basically flattening out. Fuel Cells, on the other hand, have been under serious development for only 50 or so years and the watts/pound development curve is still straight up. Expanded advancement in Fuel Cell technology started circa 1999. Since then the watts/pound of Fuel Cells has quadrupled with reduction in costs–not associated with mass production. As with batteries, mass production will eventually bring the price down–probably more so than batteries. Why? Because the materials used in rechargeable batteries are expensive, compared to Fuel Cells. I know, you are going to hit me with the platinum argument. Well, that is a minor argument at the present time.
Now, let us discuss the battery in the Fuel Cell car. The most power required for a car is when it is breaking its inertia (starting from a dead stop). It does not require as much power to keep it running as it does to start it. So, to reduce the size of the Fuel Cell, a rechargeable or an ultra capacitor is used to supplement the Fuel Cell in start ups and hills, recharging either in braking or from the Fuel Cell.
Now let us discuss a few points about batteries.
1. Advancement in battery technology is essentially flat. (check with NASA, DOE, etc.).
2. Recharging is time consuming and every battery manufacturer requires their own special chargers. Li-Ion is very persnickety and discharged or recharged indiscriminately will shorten or end their life. So, having chargers all over the place is not an answer. Carrying a charger, yes, added weight, requiring more batteries. What about cave dwellers in places like N. Y. City? Where do they plug in? An IC/Gen–recharging system?
More weight–more batteries.
3. All rechargeables deteriorate with every recharge. It is like starting off with a 20 gallon gas tank and every time you refill it, it holds one gallon less. Twenty refills and you have to buy a new gas tank. Less charge, less distance. Sure, Fuel Cells wear out, but their life expectancy is increasing yearly with no end in sight (the development curve). Like an ICE, they will keep going as long as they are fed fuel.
4. What about accessories? AC, heater, radio, etc.? You have to have power to run them. Lots more batteries–more batteries to carry the extra batteries.
5. Batteries have to be properly disposed of–Fed and State regs because of the chemicals.
Fuel Cells have NO dangerous components and could be ground up and recycled easily.
Now, about your statement about the mad rush to produce BEVs by the auto companies. That could generate a whole discussion by itself and I would prefer to keep our discussion between batteries and Fuel Cells.
Yup! As Gary Cooper would say. The sound barrier was broken, and it took a long time. And, as I said it took over 20 years to develop the auto and the gas station for the masses.. Yes, it will take time to develop the structure needed for the Fuel Cell era. Remember, if you are old enough, it took about 50 years for Tenn. to get electricity from TVA from the time T. Edison turned on his power plant in 1882 on Pearl Street in N.Y. City. Consider that cost. Consider what the space program has cost the past 50 years and how long it took to get where we are. Fuel Cells for cars is really just a fraction of the Fuel Cell future. Fuel Cell technology is the greatest advancement in power generation since Watts steam engine in 1775, since the first oil well in 1859, since the power generation of Thomas Edison’s power plant in 1882.
I have had 80 years of life, engineering and business experience to understand what is happening. I feel sorry for young people as yourself that are blinded by the present forces of hype, lack of history, the fad of the time, the willingness to get on the bandwagon no matter where it goes, the lack of ability or the laziness to dig into the information that is available to make an INTELLIGENT assessment.
As an engineer, I rarely make flat out statements. But, in this instance I will. Your judgement about BEVs is completely wrong, is based on a complete lack of engineering knowledge, business acumen, history, and a closed mind that has been prevalent with all new advances mankind has made. The sad part is that you people down through the ages have always been the vast majority, have almost always been proven wrong, and only survive because the 2% that do not go along with the masses keeps the human civilization(?) going.
Sincerely,
Philip A. Block, EE
Hello Dan:
I would like to put my two cents worth in here (you may think it’s worth more) about your negative outlook on Fuel Cell autos. First, a little history. As I have written many times, we are going through the same thing that the first autos went through at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centurys, except on a higher technical plain. But remember, we are on a higher technical plain than back then. Circa 1885 when the first practical auto was developed until Ford brought out his massed produced car in 1908, not many people could afford them.”Too expensive and a passing fad.” Also, gasoline was available only at drug stores, hardware stores, and maybe a few other outlets, The first real gas station did not appear until around 1908. Both the car and the station took some 23 years or so to develop. Around the same time, T. Edison developed the battery powered electric automobile that stayed around until the end of WWII, mainly in a few large cities on a small scale. Up until the end of WWII, a bread and cake company in N. Y. City delivered their products door to door with battery electric trucks. Due to the high density of population and the shortages of gasoline, they served well. At the end of the war, cheap gasoline and the ICE caused the battery truck’s demise. For a hundred years, every configuration of battery electric cars has been tried by every conceivable type of person from the ditch digger to the PhD. You know what they found out? The Achilles heel was the battery. Every attempt to build a practical battery electric auto failed. Today, history is repeating itself. People of all walks of life are attempting to accomplish something that has been proven impractical over and over again. Some of these people should know better. The con artists are attempting to make a quick buck off the gullible. Sorry to say, the electro chemistry does not exist to develop a rechargeable battery that will power a practical electric auto. The development curve of rechargeable batteries has essentially flattened out. Sure, advances can always be made but the R&D time and money can be better put to further the development of Fuel Cells. The development curve of Fuel Cells is, for all practical purposes still straight up. President Kennedy said let’s go to the moon, PhDs at several top Universities said man will never get there. It is technically impossible. “Man will never fly heavier than air craft.” Etc., etc. and down through history. The only successful, practical all electric auto will be powered by Fuel Cells. Why? Because they will operate like ICEs. They will be the REAL electric cars and not some battery operated toy. So, Mr. Neil, give a few more years, and if I am still around, I will gladly wipe the egg off your face.
Sincerely,
Philip A. Block, EE
March 5, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
Philip Block says...
Please Note: The second email should be read first.
March 14, 2009 @ 8:07 pm
Richard Horwitz says...
ACAL Energy Announces Successful Operation of Novel Fuel Cell With Recirculating Liquid Cathode Technology13 March 2008ACAL replaces the cathode in a conventional PEM fuel cell with a liquid, non-precious metal catalyst system. UK-based ACAL Energy Ltd. has announced the successful operation of a new type of fuel cell system based on its proprietary recirculating liquid cathode technology, known as FlowCath. A 50W fully integrated multi-cell system incorporating the Flowcath technology was operated for the first time last week and produced higher power levels than expected, according to the company.The FlowCath system replaces the standard—and expensive—platinum cathode found in conventional fuel cells with a liquid, non-precious metal catalyst system. This not only reduces the cost of the cell, but also humidifies the membrane naturally, eliminating the need for additional hydration systems, and better manages the heat which is generated.The circulating catalyst solution was originally invented by Ford Motor in 1950s, but abandoned because the chemical system couldn’t deliver enough oxygen. ACAL leverages advances in detergent chemistry over the past 50 years.ACAL’s core technology is the liquid catalyst chemistry. The company currently uses a polyoxometallate inorganic association complex that is very stable and robust, and offers the same power density as platinum (unpressurized), with an additional 100% performance improvement possible.For its next-generation system, the company is developing a transition metal-ligand complex. This is a higher potential catalyst, capable of delivering 2-3x the performance of platinum, according to ACAL.Acal The fact that we have managed successfully to build a 10-cell stack, and get the integrated system working so quickly is down to our approach of changing only those parts of the system necessary to adopt our FlowCath technology, keeping everything else the same. — Dr Andrew Creeth, inventorACAL will next try to scale up from the initial 50W system to a 1 kW unit, as well as running the system to demonstrate the expected long term durability advantages of the approach.ACAL Energy Limited was co-founded in August 2004 by FlowCath inventor Dr Andrew Creeth and Amanda Lyne. The CEO is Dr Sb Cha, ex Commercial Director of CDT Inc. ACAL Energy is in the process of raising private equity funds in order to take the technology forward from small scale laboratory systems, into manufacturable prototypes.Although ACAL is targeting a range of markets, including stationary, residential and automotive applications requiring larger than 1 kW of power, its initial target is diesel generator replacement ($4b+ market). Home CHP and automotive are longer term possibilities. ACAL thinks it will be ready for initial commercialization by 2010.Take that - all you doubters. The fuel cell effect originated in Britain in 1829, but the technology has only begun. The U.S. will probably license this and produce all kinds of electrical gadgets. I have heard nary a word about FC’s from our government. They could use some of that money for our FC industry.
April 9, 2009 @ 12:50 pm
Jennifer says...
The Clarity just won the World Green Car of the Year at the NY Auto Show -
from the press release -
“Jurors felt that “The FCX clarity is an utterly real, hydrogen-fuelled luxury sedan that provides the amenities people expect in a premium car with 430 km range, fuel consumption of about 3.3 litres/100 km (72 mpg US) equivalent and zero tailpipe emissions. While there is only so much the automotive industry can do when it comes to this technology - governments need to come onboard to help create a true refuelling infrastructure - Honda must be credited for taking a bold step in leasing FCX Clarity to customers in California for US$600 per month. There’s still a long way to go before fuel-cell cars will become a commercial success, but hats off to Honda for continuing to advance this expensive technology during a time when every cent counts.”