Scoot:
Ford and GM are heavily into FCV's too. Especially GM, (Project Driveway, Sequel prototype, Volt FCV range Extender version). And to make it more confusing, GM and Ford are doing poorly financially. They don't have the money to waste like you say Toyota and Honda do. Why would ANY company, especially ones beholden to shareholders, just "waste" money on anything? Do we think that they just simply never did the math with this stuff? That, one day their all just going to wake up and have this huge revelation that they were wrong to pursue Hydrogen all of these years, and that the posters at green car congress were right, and they'll all feel like such fools?

The car companies are all getting MORE involved with Hydrogen, not LESS. This is what makes me think their may be more to it than we realize. I don't disagree that Fuel Cells are enormously expensive, that Hydrogen is difficult to obtain especially in a green way, or that the infrastructure costs would be enormous. But, if these obstacles would be deemed as insurmountable by people at the car companies, then why do they continue to go deeper and deeper into this realm? No one can seem to answer that with a satisfactory explanation.

Schmeltz... hydrogen comes from natural gas, electricity from coal, or from nuclear energy. All three of which are either expensive, non-renewable, or years and years away from being feasible.

I can get in a carbon fiber vehicle with a three hundred pound battery, drive seventy miles an hour on the highway, safely, for three hundred miles or so, drive to a place that has a quick charge (which currently runs on coal, true), wait ten minutes, and be on my way.

North America is completely electrified for all intents and purposes.

We are DECADES away from having a feasible hydrogen infrastructure.

Electricity is HERE, Hydrogen is YEARS and YEARS away.

Its strange how the fuel cell defenders haven't given one technical reason to support them (Matthew is a fine example). If fuel cells are the answer, we would like to know why. Please explain.

Scoot said: "I can get in a carbon fiber vehicle with a three hundred pound battery,drive..."

Really? Where can we can the rest of us get this vehicle? Who makes this? How much? At the very least, speaking of the Honda FCV Clarity, we are talking about a very real car that can be leased today, not supposition.

Again, I don't argue the obstacles you mention above with Hydrogen. They are all valid points and enormously expensive. But you haven't answered my fundamental question...If fuel cells are pointless, then why do most, if not all of the Automakers continue to refine them? I'm not trying to be argumentative BTW, so don't take my posts offensively. I'm just trying to expose a problem in the anti-hydrogen argument that just continues to go ignored.

The Tesla Roadster has, in fact, a 220 mile range, and can be BOUGHT, not leased... for 110,000 American dollars, or so.

I apologize for the overstatement on its range.

Schmeltz, fuel cells are not pointless... they can be used to acquire government funds, pacify Ecological Groups, and fool most folks that are ignorant of the science. That is certainly worth investing money into.

What they are worthless at, though... is as a profit making mass-produced vehicle.

unknown poster said:
"It's strange how the fuel cell defenders haven't given one technical reason to support them..."

I have conceded already that I don't have the technical evidence to build a case for Hydrogen. In fact I agree with most here on the argument against Hydrogen. What I'm trying to point out is, there are hundreds, if not thousands of people working on these vehicles everyday, whom are far more intelligent than myself, working diligently to crack the problems one by one. And the vehicles are getting better and better. Look at this Honda as an example of progress on this front. If they can't see a light at the end of this tunnel, then why do they keep moving forward?

"What they are worthless at though... is a profit making mass-produced vehicle."

I agree with that. It has been said that the Volt will be a money loser for GM for at least a few years until some economies of scale can kick in to lower the cost. The Prius was a money loser until just recently when they were able to sell mass quantities of them. Most here would agree that even though these vehicles will be/were money losers for some time, it is sure a positive thing that they made them anyway. Maybe in time we will be saying the same about FCV's.

Schmeltz...

"What I'm trying to point out is, there are hundreds, if not thousands of people working on these vehicles everyday, whom are far more intelligent than myself, working diligently to crack the problems one by one. And the vehicles are getting better and better. Look at this Honda as an example of progress on this front. If they can't see a light at the end of this tunnel, then why do they keep moving forward?"

Engineers are for the most part, the very antithesis of idealism. As long as the paychecks keep coming, they will continue to work on a non-feasible problem.

Its strange how the fuel cell defenders haven't given one technical reason to support them (Matthew is a fine example).

Actually, I'm not a big fuel cell defender - I think EVs are going to be the long term solution in all but a few niche areas, such as perhaps long distance trucking.

It just annoys me that every time there's a post on fuel cells or anything else to do with hydrogen, we get the same incessant whining from the battery people. And it's not even interesting whining...it's the same tedious arguments about well-to-wheel efficiency and where does the hydrogen come from, and the lack of infrastructure, and and and...

"Its strange how the fuel cell defenders haven't given one technical reason to support them (Matthew is a fine example). If fuel cells are the answer, we would like to know why. Please explain."

Hydrogen "charging" of a vehicle could be very quick, and is an extension of the current refueling system. Hydrogen could also become an inexpensive storage medium for broadening the baseload status of wind and solar power generation. If so, Hydrogen might be available as fuel for transportation.

Scoot said: "...they will continue to work on a non-feasible problem".

Do you think these people all feel that they are getting up every day to just work on a "non feasible problem?" I doubt that, but I do commend you for being seemingly the only one to even attempt to answer my question.

To sum up:
Only BEV and H2-vehicle can serve as a bridge between current fossil fuel to renewable energy future, since only electricity and H2 can be easily produce from any primary source of energy. Overall efficiencies for BEV and FCV are comparable no matter what primary energy source utilized, believe it or not!

BEV is practical in smaller vehicles for daily commuting. H2-V is for larger vehicles that requires longer range and rapid fill-up. Both BEV and FCV requires more work before both can be practically mass produced, even though both BEV's and FCV's have been successfully produced in limited number for demonstration and research purposes.

Progress in PEM fuel cell has been breathtaking. The amount of platinum can be reduced by as much as 100 folds, and less expensive catalysts have been demonstrated. The membrane durability has recently been demonstrated to be as long as 7000 hours. H2 adsorptive matrices have been develped to allow denser H2 storage at more practical pressures. H2 filling infrastructure will not be as expensive as many people believe, especially if added on gradually as the number of H2-Vehicle will grow. All safety concerns regarding H2 can be addressed with current technology.

I agree very much with Schmeitz. The people working on fuel cells know a lot more about the issues than people commenting here.

I'd suggest that the truth is that neither fuel cell nor battery technology is ready today to be a replacement for internal combustion engines. Both of them will require breakthroughs and new technology. There is no guarantee in either case that such breakthroughs will arrive. Therefore it makes sense to hedge your bets by pursuing both technologies.

In simple terms they look at where they KNOW the tech is going and comparte all of them against current tech.

They then know where they will be using each tech and WHEN and what it will likelty be used for.

They are all going for bev and h2 fuel cells BECAUSE they see a solid GARANTEED EXCLUSIVE market for BOTH.

They ONLT question left was when and how much?

And it wasnt h2 or lith that aswered that it was fossil fuel itself.

The answer os too soon and too much.

It was never the battery or the fuel cell or hydrogen it was always oil that wiykd soarj the fire and it HASD razed one hell of a bondfire under thier asses.

Hydrogen fuel cell is pursued by vehicle manufacturers because, should it ever become reality, it will once and for all get the government regulators (who care about CO, NOx, particles, etc) off their backs. This is in addition to the research and development grants, the public image effects, etc.

As far as I can tell, neither the vehicle manufacturers nor anyone else in the automotive industry has put any serious effort into thinking about where all this hydrogen is going to come from on an industrial scale, how it will be transported from one place to another, whether the complete "well to wheels" system - or optimistically, "sun to wheels" system - is actually a benefit or not, etc. These aspects are scarcely ever mentioned at all.

As I recall, the FCX Clarity is sharing the same bodyshell with Honda's upcoming hybrid gasoline-electric model. It will be interesting to make a comparison between the two ...

I'm very impressed at this effort, That it must be costing a fortune, probably utilises unobtainium in manufacture and runs on imagination, It matters not as the R&D the knowledge gained ie the contribution to the knowledge base is enough to warrant high praise .
Will I see them on the road anytime soon? I doubt it as the H infrastructure is a brick wall. But progress at this rate is adding to spinoffs in every area of power generation and storage in particular road transport.
We are all all benificiaries from this effort.
Consider this a test and development platform and first class at that.
To advertise it as a viable current technology is the silly bit, But no matter how fraudulent it would be to promote this as ready to roll, as advertisers and promoters tend to forget (comes with the territory)
The fact remains that by the time any useful market share can be considered, the supporting technologies will need to be in place.
And yes renewable energy will at that point be every bit as viable for fuel production as any other esp with Carbon taxes (whatver) and the likelihood of production and raw materials will have come a lot closer to matching production requirements ( or visa verso)

Unfortunately this does little to change my perception of H2 being of much help anytime soon.

The reason they dont talk about where they expect all the h2 to come from and how is....

They dont need one till lster.

Since we are dealing with a transition from one hypermegajumboconclomofest of an indutry to anouther both reaching trillion buck levels.. they can afford to just put out a messy half assed temp system to handle the initial decade or so and THEN roll in the mid term system abd THEN!!!! replace that woth yet anouther system down the line.

I mean realy they made 128 BILLION last year they dont need to worry about it.

Also by using cheap half assed systems early on they will save huge amounts later on and its that later on they care about.

Can anyone explain why Honda is choosing lease-only for the FCX Clarity?

Honda has done an amazing job refining the fuel cell in this car. If 10% of the cars in the U.S. were run on natural gas, we would only use 2% more natural gas. The same holds true for hydrogen made from natural gas. I would rather pay $2 per therm for natural gas than $4.50 per gallon for gasoline. It is cleaner, I can refuel in my garage and we would be less dependant on foreign oil. We can also make SNG from biomass to fill the pipes easiliy.