Honda Begins Production of Zero-Emission Hydrogen Cars

[CCTAU 3,325]

There will be a hybrid to pull this when?

They'll have something to pull it soon after they figure out how to pull the teeth of those so strongly against alternative methods.

Bull. You go on vacation and use all of the resources that are afforded you through the hotel systems, etc.. Others choose to be able to pull something they can stay in. We both use the same amount of resources, you just feel vindicated because yours was paid to someone else. Folks using large vehicles to pull trailers for hauling and/or RVing have just as much right to do so as you do to waste your money on a fancy hotel. As soon as they come up with an affordable vehicle that uses an alternative fuel that can pull my 30 foot camper, then we can talk. Until then, just because you drive a tiny little electric vehicle does not make you smarter or more energy saving than the rest of us. You just pawn the responsibility off on someone else by paying for it in a different way. You and Al Gore with his carbon offsets are no different. Many of us that drive vehicle that pull large trailers would love to have a vehicle that could do so efficiently. I guess you people think we enjoy having to pay a lot more just to pull our RVs around. Seems like the "go green or die" crowd is out again.

[Tigermike 3,027]

There will be a hybrid to pull this when?

They'll have something to pull it soon after they figure out how to pull the teeth of those so strongly against alternative methods.

It's not really not a matter of people being against alternative fuels. The problem is they are not available. They are not cost efficient. They are not able to do what is needed, such as pull those trailers. There are people who live in places a hybrid would not be practacle. They are fine in cities and as commuter vehicles but are severly lacking as work vehicles. I have friends in Colorado, Wyoming and Montana who have to drive long distances just to go to the grocery. 30 - 40 miles to go to WalMart.

Add to that not everyone can afford one. What do they cost? $25 - $30,000? There is a large majority of people out there that would have problems purchasing one of those. But if a hybrid in every home is on the dims ageda, let us know.

[AUTiger1 0]

There will be a hybrid to pull this when?

They'll have something to pull it soon after they figure out how to pull the teeth of those so strongly against alternative methods.

Dude, no offense, but that is a pretty stupid statement to make. Some people make their living off cattle, horses and other livestock and have to use trailers just like the one TM posted. Some make their living or a majority of their living Rodeoing. I am sure they would love to have something that is cheaper than diesel. You also have to remember that farmers have to run their tractors off diesel, off-road of course, but they still have to purchase it and it is still more expensive than it has ever been. So it's not like people like that wouldn't like to have an alternative, but you don't see "The Big 3" trying to come up with a Hybrid Dually with a 5th wheel so these guys can get down the road. Shame, it's these "little guys" like the ones that I have described, that are getting dumped on.

[kwagoner 214]

Some companies are opening doors. If a big rig can be hybrid, I'm sure they have something to pull a cattle trailer, RV, boat, etc.

Big Rig

Kenworth Too

Many of us that drive vehicle that pull large trailers would love to have a vehicle that could do so efficiently. I guess you people think we enjoy having to pay a lot more just to pull our RVs around.

I know it sucks for you to pay ridiculous prices to get around. So, here is your truck. More are expected to come. Consider the intitial higher investment versus the long term savings in fuel costs at current prices, not to mention any rises.

Chevy Pickup

You can even take the family.

SUVs

Most of these are even domestic car manufacturers, which would reduce the risk of dependence on any other country for our transportaion needs.

Some people make their living off cattle, horses and other livestock and have to use trailers just like the one TM posted. Some make their living or a majority of their living Rodeoing. I am sure they would love to have something that is cheaper than diesel. You also have to remember that farmers have to run their tractors off diesel, off-road of course, but they still have to purchase it and it is still more expensive than it has ever been.

I understand where you are coming from, but options may soon be available to those farmers. Would any uses these though? We'll have to see.

Farm Equipment Could be next.

You and Al Gore with his carbon offsets are no different

I'm not siding with that man. He just wanted to make a dollar with his book/lectures and make another push for president IMO. His SECOND home is a big energy and natural gas consumer. His primary home is not much better. He has a personal aircraft to run himself around the world on, plus multiple gas guzzlers on the ground. This link is just the tip of his hypocritical iceberg.

Hypocrit

It's not really not a matter of people being against alternative fuels. The problem is they are not available. They are not cost efficient. They are not able to do what is needed, such as pull those trailers. There are people who live in places a hybrid would not be practacle. They are fine in cities and as commuter vehicles but are severly lacking as work vehicles. I have friends in Colorado, Wyoming and Montana who have to drive long distances just to go to the grocery. 30 - 40 miles to go to WalMart.

Add to that not everyone can afford one. What do they cost? $25 - $30,000? There is a large majority of people out there that would have problems purchasing one of those.

Very good post Tiger Mike. This was not directly targeted at you, by the way. I understand that it is not available in most areas. Those are the teeth I refered to needing to be pulled. If there were more places to recharge or fuel up on hydrogen I feel more people would buy those types of cars, trucks, and suvs. Should every small town in AL, CO, and MO have 10 places to do so? No. But one in Lee County, a station in Montgomery, a couple in Huntsville and Birmingham, and a few Atlanta would be good. Just one gas station to say "hey I'm going to give options to my customers." I think cities are a good place to start. Typically, these people have higher salaries and more funds to purchase the vehicles while they are at their highests initial costs. Once advances are made and the demand increases, prices will (or at least should) be more competitive with conventional vehicles making it better for the "average Joe" to purchase one. Soon enough, the people out in Wyoming, Colorado, and Montana would eventually have the option as it spreads and works it way to them. Hopefully battery, hydrogen, and overall techonology would make the vehicles go further on less too. It will be a long hard change, but is one that some day will have to happen be it in our lifetime or not. The only part I fully disagree with them not being able to pull trailers and RV's. (see above)

[Tigermike 3,027]

Thanks for posting that info, I didn't realize those vehicles were presently available. As far as price how do they compare to the "old technology"?

And as it comes more available, more and more people will use it. Then six and ten years down the road those folks who only buy used (mostly very used) vehicles can purchase without going in debt for more than they pay for a house.

[CCTAU 3,325]

Come on. I knew you would bring up the new Chevys. And I knew you would show only a surface amount of knowledge. A 6,100 lb towing capacity is CRAP. You can't pull squat with that. When discussing towing, please get a clue. The truck in the picture was towing at least 12,000 lbs. That is the problem with the hybrids, they look pretty, but they only haul a few butts, nothing else. But you and most of America buy into the bull that because its a truck or an SUV, then it is the same as a normal truck or SUV. I would love for them to come out with a vehicle that could actually perform the same as my diesel with no emission and better mileage. But when you start discussing towing, you are getting into a whole different animal.

So the question stands. When will they actually produce a vehicle capable of towing the trailer in the above post? As soon as they do, you will see folks flock to it. We don't drive big because we enjoy higher fuel prices. We drive big to tow our trailers so that our family time is not spent in a hotel room. (Not to mention, we do it for medical reasons. The bed in the camper is the only place my wife can sleep. Bad back. Special mattress.)

[AUTiger1 0]

Thanks for posting that info, I didn't realize those vehicles were presently available. As far as price how do they compare to the "old technology"?

And as it comes more available, more and more people will use it. Then six and ten years down the road those folks who only buy used (mostly very used) vehicles can purchase without going in debt for more than they pay for a house.

What he said, I didn't realize that Case was working on a hybrid tractor. I would still like to see a 3/4 or 1 ton version of the truck. It takes a lot of truck to pull a fully loaded 5-horse. Now with all the stop and go with tractors and work trucks could be very beneficial and I could see a lot of people switching if, #1)it is not to pricey, and #2) if they haven't purchased new equipment in the last couple of years prior.

[CCTAU 3,325]

Thanks for posting that info, I didn't realize those vehicles were presently available. As far as price how do they compare to the "old technology"?

And as it comes more available, more and more people will use it. Then six and ten years down the road those folks who only buy used (mostly very used) vehicles can purchase without going in debt for more than they pay for a house.

What he said, I didn't realize that Case was working on a hybrid tractor. I would still like to see a 3/4 or 1 ton version of the truck. It takes a lot of truck to pull a fully loaded 5-horse. Now with all the stop and go with tractors and work trucks could be very beneficial and I could see a lot of people switching if, #1)it is not to pricey, and #2) if they haven't purchased new equipment in the last couple of years prior.

Well the problem with that is that farm equipment, if properly cared for, can last MANY years. It's not like farmers buy new machinery every five or six years. Basic diesel machines are hard working and long lasting. The only ones that will be able to afford new stuff are your large corporations. So we are still looking at a LONG turn around on farm equipment.

As with all of the new technologies, there is no immediate change over. It will take 10 to 20 years to completely switch. In the mean time, if we drill, we will be able to transition more smoothly. The left doesn't care who suffers as long as the "right thing" (according to them) is done.

The new technology by Honda is a STEP. But to grab hold and abandon what we have for unproven technology is a move that could put us in a bad situation.

[kwagoner 214]

The new technology by Honda is a STEP. But to grab hold and abandon what we have for unproven technology is a move that could put us in a bad situation.

That is my point. As I said, it will be a "long, hard change". As far as the Chevy you knew I'd bring up, again it is a progression. IF there is enough to tow 6100 lbs now with some progress and real intrest shown in those vehicles, it will encourage Chevy, Ford, Dodge, Toyota, Nissan, etc to create a truck that meets the needs of you and your family. The added competion with others jumping on board to compete to sell you the first truck that tows the trailer pictured, the more it will help lower the pocket damage. Given that there are multiple big rigs, then I doubt it would take too long to get to that point.

Regarding the farm equipment, the same can be said for cars, planes, and even your kitchen utensils. If properly cared for and maintained, they can last a long time. I'm sure that is part of the reason Case has not released their lines yet, despite over 10 years research. And yes, it will be a long time to completely switch. The same is said for cars. But the remaining point, and we seem to both see it, is there will have to be a switch at some time.

[lukeduke 8]

I thought a third obstacle to these fuel cell vehicles is that the energy it takes to produce the hydrogen for the cars actually ends up polluting more than the production and use of gasoline does.

Depends on how you produce it. Nuclear energy would be clean. Coal energy wouldn't be. Also, termites, of all things, can produce 2L of hydrogen off one 8.5x11 sheet of paper.

I do have a conspiracy theory with hydrogen vehicles (and I'm not alone)... I think there exists a way to create the hydrogen on board, but if that is true, the government can't impose a fuel tax. Therefore, they're only interested in solutions that require the use of fuel stations.

Since water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen...I think you're on to something.

See article above...no?

A breakthrough in the design of the fuel cell stack, which is the unit that powers the car's motor, allowed engineers to lighten the body, expand the interior and increase efficiency, Honda said.

The fuel cell draws on energy synthesized through a chemical reaction between hydrogen gas and oxygen in the air, and a lithium-ion battery pack provides supplemental power. The FCX Clarity has a range of about 270-miles per tank with hydrogen consumption equivalent to 74 miles per gallon, according to the carmaker.

Saw above article yes. The quote that I quoted was that there should be a way to generate the hydrogen on board, as in you would not need to go to a filling station that supplies hydrogen. The quote also mentioned the theory that a conspiracy is afoot since that would eliminate fuel tax. My reply to previously stated quote was simply suggesting that there should be a way to split the water molecule and utilize the hydrogen. At that point, you would not need to go to a hydrogen station and fill the car up.

With that being said, if I misunderstood the article and this vehicle is completely self sufficient with no fuel of any sort needed, I apologize. I am under the assumption that you would still need to take the vehicle to a station to be supplied with hydrogen.

[kwagoner 214]

Thanks for posting that info, I didn't realize those vehicles were presently available. As far as price how do they compare to the "old technology"?

It is hard to say for sure. It depends a lot on the vehicle and who makes it. The range, though, is anywhere from 20-45% higher now. The 20% is more for family cars like Camrys. Part of this I think is due to there being a more competitive market for that particular type of car. Honda, Chevy, Izuzu, Toyota, etc all have 4-door sedans.

The SUV's and trucks are around the 45%. They are still relatively new and much fewer manufacturers are offering these options. Chevy and GMC are about it for now. SUVs have made a slight decline over the past year. The even newer pickups should drop within the next 5 years as others jump on board and more are sold.

Sorry, for not adressing it in my post above.

[RunInRed 16,407]

Do you have a link for the people of Alaska not wanting to drill? Rep Young, Senators Stevens and Murkowski, seem to think that is what their want. You can check out their sites.

I think for the most part, you are right about Alaska. Some native tribes have expressed dissent but most seem to be in favor. However, on the coast, it's a much different story - and this is where the heart of the drilling debate will take place.

By calling for an end to the federal ban on offshore oil drilling, John McCain is placing a risky bet. He is wagering that skyrocketing gas prices have finally reached a tipping point, a threshold moment that has led voters to rethink their strong and long-held opinions against coastal oil exploration.

The stakes couldn’t be higher: If he is wrong, McCain will have seriously damaged his chances in two key states with thousands of miles of coastline — California and Florida — and where opposition to offshore oil drilling has been unwavering. And he will have undermined some of his closest political allies in those states and others, including potential fall battlegrounds such as Virginia and North Carolina.

“Before $4.25-per-gallon gas, this would have been like pulling a pin on a grenade and rolling it into the state,” said David Johnson, the former executive director of the Florida Republican Party. “It would have been a fool’s errand to recommend it. It was never, ever a thing that a smart politician would have done in Florida.”

In California, the drilling issue is just as volatile, said Sal Russo, a veteran Sacramento, Calif.-based Republican consultant.

“California got really sensitive about these issues since the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill. And I don’t think it’s changed much since then,” he said. “There are strong feelings on the issue.”

Indeed, an overwhelming 64 percent of Californians opposed opening up more of the state’s coast to oil drilling, according to a February 2006 survey by the Public Policy Institute of California. That figure was up 14 percentage points from 2004.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11154.html