
For more than a century, internal combustion engine cars have throned as a symbol of personal freedom, fashioned after an American post-war ideal born out of the wealth of cheap oil. Even in the face of the environmental consequences such as air pollution, climate change, peak oil and having our habitat poisoned by thronged highways filled with suburban sprawl commuters, we have continued to buy into this ideal. Therefore, instead of trying to amend the root of a problem which stems from overuse of finite resources for our comfort and enjoyment, we are now trying to find alternatives that will permit us to continue down this ultimately failed path. One of the proffered substitutes is hydrogen, not in itself a source but a carrier of energy.
Trying to avoid bias, the simple fact that that are serious and valid concerns as to the feasibility of a hydrogen economy makes unavoidable the questioning of the viability of fuel cell cars and their appeal as a one-stroke, fusion style solution. The question is what they really are, a pipe dream or an actual alternative? Perhaps more to the point, the automotive industry’s established giants has tended to ignore the potential of 100% electric cars until now and when they do present a green concept car, it is often hybrids or hydrogen one that are offered as sustainable solutions. One of these cars is the Honda FCX Clarity.
Honda is readying their hydrogen clean car flagship the for small scale market introduction in… 2010. Too few, too late. The fact that it is happening at a ridiculously slow pace adds to the fuel-cell-as-silver-bullet-charade interpretation. Michael Graham Richard, in the Treehugger Blog article on the FCX, says:
While fuel cell hydrogen cars are impressive technological marvels and we can dream about a world where most transportation only emits water, we should be realistic about the obstacles that need to be overcome before that world is a reality.*
First of all, try to imagine the time it will take to replace all the cars already out there. Secondly, the most common and sensible objection to this technology is the enormous investment required, in both money and energy, to set up an infrastructure for large scale production and widespread distribution of hydrogen. The electric car manufacturing competitors have, with plug-in EVs are mass produced (which is happening right now) and widely accepted(which is coming), an already up and running grid. (Ecotricity’s founder Dale Vince is having a wind powered car built by a team from Lotus. It could have been a vehicle literally propulsed by wind using sails, but it is, logically, his company’s wind turbines providing the fuel. Electricity. He could have had the turbines power hydrogen production plants but that feels, in all honesty, pretty stupid.) Another thing in favor of the EV scenario is that, even if it represents a staggering amount of work and financial investment, conventional cars could actually be ‘upgraded’ by changing the combustion engine to an electric motor. A similar hydrogen ‘upgrade’ is technically all but impossible, mainly due to security issues.
In an interview published in the Wall Street Journal, Honda Motor Co. Chief Executive Takeo Fukui explains why his company is neglecting EVs in favour of hybrids and hydrogen cars:
We feel the practical feasibility of the electric vehicle is very limited. The biggest issue is driving distance. The other issue is the recharging time. The FCX Clarity can be recharged in one minute. With the electric vehicle, it can take several hours. However, this is not to deny the possibility of battery electric vehicles. It’s very useful for vehicles with restricted applications, like golf carts.**
This comment is not in tune with reality. Much of our future transportation is liable to be restricted in any case and if there are no hydrogen fuelling stations in place, the recharging time of the FCX is irrelevant. In reference to the argument that hydrogen cars would allow us the same amount of independence that its gasoline ancestor have it must be said that it is encouraging an unsustainable way of life. When Fukui is asked what went wrong with Honda’s hybrid the Insight which was introduced in the US before the Toyota Prius, he say:
Well, I don’t think anything was wrong. Our intention was not to try to make Insight a mass seller. The significance of the Insight was that at the time, we wanted to establish the best record for fuel efficiency, and we did.**
The research the went into bringing forth record breaking hybrid was not dropped. Why it was not more aggresively pursued is a mystery, Toyota’s best seller came along and became synonomous with green cars. Is the Clarity another in Insight or is it smoke screen? Fukui continues, ‘We have to make strategic choices. The hybrid will be the core product, and after that comes fuel cell and clean diesel.’
The intention with this article was to make a critical analysis of the actual car. What remains is criticism. Not of the car as such -which is to all appearance an engineering masterpiece- but of hydrogen cars in general. For a long time, the industry has promised but not delivered and there is, in January 2009, too much still to be solved and not enough clarity. Sorry Honda.
As EcoSwitch is not able to offer any truly convincing arguments for full scale hydrogen car technology as a solution, look for them here. Best of luck.
.
* Blog article ‘Top Gear LOVES Honda’s Hydrogen Car, But…’ by Mike Graham Richard on Treehugger.com, read it here.
** Article ‘Honda CEO Vies For Green Mantle’ by John Murphy in Wall Street Journal Online, read it here.
Leif Ahnland leif ahnland
Posted under Cars & Transport, Companies
This post was written by Leif Ahnland on January 18, 2009
-->