Future of the Car: Honda FCX Clarity

Last May, Senior Engineer Gabe Shenhar and I drove a Honda FCX concept car, gaining an early impression of this fuel-cell-powered sedan. I got behind the wheel at the recent Consumer Reports Future of the Car event and drove the production model at modest speeds around the Auto Test Center grounds. 

The production car, now called the FCX Clarity, is available to select customers in Southern California for lease and costs $600 a month. So far, Honda has delivered just a handful of them, though it has announced plans to move approximately 200 to customers in the first three years of production.

The FCX Clarity uses a 100 kW fuel cell mounted vertically like a small suitcase between the front seats. A fuel cell – once known as a chemical battery – makes electricity by combining hydrogen and oxygen. It produces no pollution; slight water vapor comes from the tailpipe.

A 5,000-psi hydrogen tank filled with 4 kg of hydrogen gives it a range of more than 260 miles, according to Honda. Like other modern fuel-cell cars, it also uses a lithium-ion battery to store excess energy and provide short bursts of acceleration. Unlike other prototype fuel-cell cars we have driven, such as the Nissan X-Trail, the FCX Clarity emits a high-pitched electric whine while accelerating. 

As we wrote in a previous blog:
“This midsized sedan feels remarkably normal -- in a good way. The car gathers acceleration very promptly and quietly. The electric motor's immediate torque is felt right off the line. The electric motor whines on its way to highway speeds, but sounds quieter than most piston-engine cars. It sounds like a muted, distant hair dryer, with no traditional gas engine and or exhaust sounds.”

Some of the main challenges of fuel cells are cost, durability, and the car’s range. While other automakers are moving toward 10,000-psi fuel tanks to increase the amount of hydrogen on-board and increase range, Honda has addressed range by improving the fuel efficiency of the car.

The company is still working on cost, but says the fuel-cell system in the FCX Clarity costs half of what the one in its previous FCX fuel cell vehicle cost. Fuel cell durability issues are reduced by leasing the vehicles, rather than selling them to customers.

The car itself is impressive, but, in our opinion, costs too much. Currently, each car is estimated to cost about half a million dollars. And without subsidies, hydrogen costs more than twice as much as gasoline today.

Plus, just obtaining the hydrogen is a problem. It either comes from natural gas or from electricity, a process that consumes more energy than the hydrogen provides.

As good as the FCX Clarity is, it will still be many years before hydrogen is a mainstream fuel. Consider the FCX Clarity a car of tomorrow.

—Eric Evarts

Comments

[minimal car guy]

"The car itself is impressive, but, in our opinion, costs too much. Currently, each car is estimated to cost about half a million dollars."

That is a matter of opinion. My Veyron costs more than that. I think the Honda Clarity is a bargain.

[Charles]

Thanks for the review, but a couple of the points you make are bad.

First, on the half million dollar cost; Any first of a kind electrical product is going to cost 1/2 a million dollars to make. Mass production will bring these cars down to regular prices.

Second, your arguement that hydrogen takes more energy to make than it can give off. The same would be said of every other fuel in the world that has ever existed it's simple physics.

[SunnyvaleCA]

At this point in time, fuel cell cars are competing with cars that run on batteries. So far, it looks like the batteries are way ahead. Fuel cell cars can be refilled faster, but battery quick-charge technology is gaining ground. On the side of battery cars is the fact that storing electricity in a battery is much more energy-efficient than converting electricity to hydrogen, compressing it, and then converting the hydrogen back to electricity in the fuel cell. Since fuel cells aren't reversible, you still need on-board batteries if you want the benefits of regenerative breaking.

[Jack Grawoig]

At current prices, what does it cost to drive the FCX Clarity that 260 miles?

And what would it cost to drive a similarly sized fuel-efficient vehicle 260 miles? For example, my Mazda3s might get 26 mpg in urban/suburban driving, which would be 10 gallons at maybe 3.80 around Chicago suburbs. So 38 dollars sounds about right.

[Thomas]

1. Re: the comment about the price tag: Sure - that's for the pre-mass-production version. And that's what we will have for awhile - a pre-mass-production version, so the cost is an issue.

2. Re: the "simple physics" of it taking more energy to get any fuel than the fuel will release (a.k.a. laws of thermodynamics): While true, hydrogen requires extra energy to create the fuel *now;* most of our hydrocarbons are already created - including the natural gas that can either (a) be turned into hydrogen (a somewhat lossy process) to then be burned as hydrogen (another lossy process), or (b) used in natural gas vehicles (which is only a single lossy process). Note, btw, that the distribution networks for natural gas exist today, whereas the ones for hydrogen, well, don't.

Hydrogen will make sense if we can, say, produce more electricity from solar, wind, and other renewable resources; otherwise, something like natural gas will be overall more energy-efficient. This car is a nice step forward, in that it helps us evaluate the overall potential of hydrogen for a decade or more hence, but we should remember that there will be little effect in the near term. *Both* time horizons are important.

[ANGEL CLAUDIO FLORES]

HOW MUCH WILL A FCX CLARITY COST WHEN PUT INTO PRODUCTION?
HOW MUCH TO FILL THE TANK? WHAT IS THE COST OF HYDROGEN IN GALLONS?
WILL SOMEONE EXPLAIN TO ME?
THANKS

[James]

I am generally not a big wiki fan but this particular article is well documented. It answers most any question about using hydrogen as a fuel source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy

[Eric Evarts -- Consumer Reports]

Jack, Angel, Thomas, and Charles,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments and questions. For more information on hydrogen, you can read our full report here. (http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/buying-advice/fuel-cell-vehicles-10-07/overview/cell-ov.htm) Meanwhile, your questions have raised some interesting points, which I'll try to briefly answer to the best of our current knowledge. However, the one thing that is clear is that it is early in the development of hydrogen vehicles, and not all the answers are clear, especially about pricing. Hydrogen will be a moving target for some time.

1. Automakers estimate the current cost of hand-building fuel cell vehicles is over $500,000 each. In no small part, this is because fuel cells themselves use significant amounts of platinum, a very expensive metal used as a catalyst to strip electrons off of hydrogen atoms. Honda has said its cost to build an FCX Clarity is half what it cost them to build the first FCX, which it estimated at the time was $1.5 million, so figure at most $750,000. Honda, General Motors, and Toyota have all also said that the path to lower prices is clear. Half the cost reductions will come from mass production, half will have to come from materials science (learning to use less platinum in the fuel cells.) Materials science will take time, perhaps another 10 years. Mass production will require investment and a sizable market -- which is dependent on lower costs. So this too will take time and build on itself as more fuel cell test vehicles hit the road -- a path they have now started down.

2. The cost of hydrogen is even less clear than the cost of fuel cells. Cost estimates range from $3 to more than $15 per kilogram (the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline.) The cost depends largely on how the hydrogen is produced and where it is sold. Current hydrogen fuel stations set the price artificially to about twice that of gasoline, to make driving costs equivalent (accounting for the higher efficiency of fuel-cell cars.) Because hydrogen is so light and carries so little energy, the cost depends greatly on transportation costs to get it to market. It would have to be locally made or distributed by pipeline to be cost effective. Currently, there are few hydrogen pipelines in the US.

3. Hydrogen can be made from just about any organic material, but there are two primary means of making it today: One is splitting it from water, using vast amounts of electricity. As Charles and Thomas point out, using electricity to make hydrogen, only to use it to produce electricity again makes little sense from an energy efficiency standpoint. It might make sense, however, if all the electricity were renewable. Then it may not matter how much we used. As solar and wind power become more efficient and cost effective, this may become feasible.
Most hydrogen today is made from natural gas, which uses less overall energy than "cracking" water. Interestingly, according to Honda (remember, they are the only automaker that sells a natural gas vehicle) using hydrogen from natural gas in a fuel cell vehicle is more efficient overall than just burning the natural gas directly in an internal combustion engine. The extra efficiency of the electric motor over the ICE more than makes up for the cost of making hydrogen from the natural gas.

[Honda Tamworth]

I recently read (it may have been in New Scientist magazine) that there was current research /development of an alternative to platinum for automotive catalytic use that was far more abundant and therefore much more affordable. If I can find the reference, I'll post it here.

[goutam]

Hydrogen is the promising fuel for future
Honda had taken an appreciable step in developing FCX Clarity

my opinion is to take an action by Honda in production of hydrogen fuel also.......in a more efficient way

[LarryG]

re: making electricity from Natural Gas.

apples to apples - guys

we compare electricity made from hydrogen (as a fuel)
and electricity from natural gas (as a fuel).

Natural gas already exists and is 'harvested' whereas hydrogen does not exist and has to be created - by using energy to create it.

The only way hydrogen "wins" if it is is more pure and more efficient than native natural gas.

It probably is more efficient to use hydrogen to make electricity than to have natural gas power an internal combustion energy to produce mechanical energy.

by if natural gas can be used to create electricity in the same way that hydrogen is used.. then natural gas 'wins'.

That's why cars like the Honda FCX .. as a concept ... do not help the public understand the real choices and real trade-offs.. because unless they are told up front about the costs of creating hydrogen then they end up wondering why we just don't switch to hydrogen.

And the reason is called - reality. We could power every car on the road right now with hydrogen but it would cost us quite a bit more than powering cars with other fuels - including natural gas and including plug-in electric cars.

CR could do a major public service by explaining why hydrogen is not an answer to the energy problem.

It IS a cleaner fuel - a much cleaner fuel - but we'd actually create more pollution than we have right now - if we set up the infrastructure to "refine" hydrogen.

The only way that hydrogen becomes a cradle-to-grave cleaner fuel is if it is created by solar/wind electricity but then you have to ask ... why use solar/wind to create hydrogen rather than feed it directly into the electrical grid - and then used to "fuel" battery-powered plug-in cars.

[dave]

A note to Charles re his comments below:

"Second, your arguement that hydrogen takes more energy to make than it can give off. The same would be said of every other fuel in the world that has ever existed it's simple physics."

Your first point is correct, due to the inherent inefficiencies in the conversion of one form of energy to another, H2 does take more energy to make than can be obtained when it's used.

However, you're incorrect on your second point. Other fuels, namely oil, natural gas and coal liberate vastly more energy in use as fuels than was required to deliver them to the point of this energy use, ie in the cars/trucks/buses/planes etc and power plants etc.

This is because each of these compounds is a fuel in its natural state, ie coal (ready to burn), oil (ready to burn & can be refined using relatively small ammounts of energy into other specialised fuels) natural gas (ready to burn), wood (ready to burn & is renewable).

Hydrogen on the other hand does not occur naturally as fuel. It has already been "burnt", ie water (H2 + O2), or is at least bound up in complex hydrocarbon compounds, coal (complex hydrocarbon), wood (complex hydrocarbon), oil (complex hydrocarbon). To get the H2 out of these compounds including water, generally takes more energy than you get back from using the hydrogen. So you see it's actually worse than using just straight hydrocarbon fuels. ie coals, oils gases etc.

So, the only way hydrogen can be a viable low emission, renewable fuel, is if low emission, renewable energy is used to make it. But this seems to be the bit that everyone tends to forget. This means that hydrogen has to be made using stuff like geothermal, solar, wind, biomass energy etc. Otherwise it's actually worse than what we have now!