Now it would really be something if Honda could show a production ready EV with fast charge capability and a 150 miles range and at least the same performance as a similar sized ICE car.

Then all we needed was some focused politicians and 3 years to spend $200 billion or so to get a fast charge network up in every corner of the all OECD countries. The fuel cell car is too difficult and expensive to get out in mass as we need to, now that it is getting obvious that we are running out adequate global oil and natural gas supplies.

Why do we need a fast charge station at every corner? The average commute is under forty miles here in North America. There's off-the-shelf technology that could allow most car drivers to be EV drivers in ten years or so.

That off-the-shelf technology? A wall outlet and eight hours, and a gas tank for longer trips.

Ooh, kind of like the Chevy Volt...

>> Ooh, kind of like the Chevy Volt... <<

Coming at the end of 2010 and the EV's from Nissan at some point as well.

Considering all the issues associated with Hydrogen fuel cell technology (negative overall energy output for generating then burning Hydrogen, fuel cell expense, fuel cell durability, the fact that Hydrogen is more expensive than gasoline and made mainly from Natural Gas and last but not least that our Oil companies want this to have something after gasoline to sell us and no Stations to sell it to you for the most part), I look on with trepidation at how hard Honda is pushing this technology in the spotlight - not to true consumer availability, just the spotlight.

What are they thinking? Or is it just some government subsidy funding them?

A warning should go out to all home owners that if Hydrogen cars become a reality then their natural gas bills could sky rocket. If you think what corn ethanol did to food price is bad, just wait for the hydrogen monster to suck all the natural gas dry!

Come on Lulu - you don't really believe all the tripe about food prices do you???

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/biofuel-_myth-corn-ethanol-global-food-shortages.php

Why do automakers like Honda take the effort to find space for hydrogen tanks, but they won't do the same for NG tanks in NG vehicles like the Honda GX? NG or renewable methane has an extant infrastructure and doesn't need fuel cell technology to work.

Maybe they bet that within 5 years 1% of the people will have solar roofs that provide enough electricity to charge the battery and to split water to hydrogen as a range extender.
Although not super-efficient, maybe solar cells will be so cheap, or some people will just like the idea, making such a car attractive for 1% of the people in the west.
Even if 99% of the people thinks it is stupid and inefficient, 1% is still a lot of cars.

Sasparilla said:
"What are they thinking? Or is it just some government subsidy funding them?"

That has occurred in my mind. I wonder if these players have entered into production stage, knowing they could use these production facilities as levers to obtain Federal subsidies on hydrogen production. Certainly these early facilities will be money losing ventures, but if the subsidies kick in, then that would change the picture entirely.

The subsidy angle makes sense to me, because the Corn lobby has their ethanol subsidies. The Big Oil lobby probably want their subsidies on hydrogen as well.

marc - "electric motors are the technology of the past. fuel cells are the technology of the future!"

Before anyone else does it I would like to point out to you that Fuel Cell cars are electric cars with a chemical battery - hydrogen. Consider that almost everything else for increased efficiency, lower weight and less complexity has gone solid state. The final holdout in electronics was the cathode ray tube used in monitors and TVs. It is very fast being phased out in favour of LCD and plasma flat screens.

A battery electric car is an electric car with a solid state battery. Why would you think a messy chemical battery, needing 10 000psi tanks, a fragile converter (the fuel cell) and all the pumps etc that are required, is superior to a solid state battery.

marc and wintermane,
Guys, I don't want to get into abusive arguments and bashing others so I'm just going to ask you to do a little reading and find out where this hydrogen is going to come from and how much energy it takes to produce it vs. what is usable at the end point (car). The whole thing is so terribly inefficient, wasteful that it's silly.
The money and time required to build an infrastructure to support it is even worse. By the time any of that get's remotely ready for prime time, battery tech will already be so mature that you can go 300 miles on a 200 lb battery with a cost of about $2000 per battery. Look at the trends in battery development....that will happen sometime around 2014.
At that point, why would you even bother to develop a hydrogen infrastructure. It doesn't make economic sense and is not even needed by then. The real problem is that it just diverts resources and confuses people when we need to be moving to something quickly.

Highly unlikely fuel cells will play a significant role in mass produced vehicle for several reasons in near future (5-10 yrs).
They may have its place in some niche markets, like ultra-silent submarines and some other specific applications.
Reasons for such opinion:
1. All fuel cells use PLATINUM as a catalyst. Platinum supply (and reserves in the ground) is very limited, the metal is very expensive, and a mass adoption of fuel cells (say in case of abundance of H2 or other suitable fuel) for road-going cars would increase platinum demand hundred-fold (if not more), price would sky-rocket, and that would kill the project before it even got a chance to take off.
There are attempts to replace platinum with other materials, but results have been disapponting.

2. Hydrogen supply: Currently H2 can be produced from a) natural gas, b) using electricity to split water, and possibly (?) c) somehow in nuclear reactors, as a by product, or main product (not sure - in the future they may find a way to split water using extreme heat plus something else in nuclear reactors)
Reasons against any of these 3 methods:
a) Nat gas is probably more efficient if used for (home) heating, or in ICE's, as every conversion reduces efficiency
b) Using water electrolysis - inefficient. Much better use the same electricity to charge high capacity batteries (that are expected to be improved significantly in coming years, without need to use platinum or other rare and expensive elements).
Plus the transportation of electricity to distances is far cheaper than H2 transportation in expensive tanks. And the infrastructure is already in place.
c) This actually may work, but then it's not considered a green energy, only nuclear energy proponents would like it, most other wouldn't. And that technology doesn't even exist yet. The cost of hydrogen infrastructure remains.

3. Fuel (ie H2) for fuel cells needs to be produced from some other source which involves an extra operation and energy loss in the process.
It's always better to have as fewer as possible conversions, in the end the most direct methods almost always prevail over time - history teaches us that. Just recall those technologies that were marketed with a word 'direct' in name, like: "Direct injection", "Direct frequency synthesis", "Direct Drive" etc.

Given all this, fuel cells are far from being ready (and economical) to be used on a large scale, now or in near future. High capacity batteries are far more promissing in near term.
There may be some scientific breakthrough that will make FCs widely available, currently the technology is simply inferior for almost any mass application.

BTW does anybody know the approximate price of this FC Honda model, or some estimates for similar cars?

Ahhhh... Nothing better than a good fuel cell argument, urrrh debate in the morning.

Haven't you all ever wondered that if one car company was making FCV's, or even 2 or 3 companies, this could be concluded as just a science fad. But just about every car company, that's EVERY car company, has some sort of FCV project going. The argument that "they are just doing it because they get gov't susidies" doesn't pass very well with me. Don't you think if they saw a better program to throw gov't money at, they would? These are reputable companies such as Honda and Toyota (who can do no wrong) that are making the most news lately with FCV's too. Do they possibly know something the rest of us don't? Someone needs to reconcile that for me.

Do they possibly know something the rest of us don't?

I hear they have a secret process to convert the whining of battery bigots into hydrogen. This energy source is inexhaustible, renewable, and the only byproduct is lots of hot air.