With all of the posts relating to the environment, energy, greenhouse emissions, the cost of gasoline, and corn for ethanol rather than tortillas, Orange juice founder Art Pedroza is making a huge investment in demonstrating cutting edge leadership of all local bloggers by being the first one to place an order for a hydrogen car.
After scanning the choices in Sunday’s LA Times he is leaning to the Honda FCX-Clarity which is powered by hydrogen fuel cells. The FXC-Clarity offers the highest range of the four models listed with a top speed of 100 mph.
For all those who have collectively made the Orange juice a household name, in some quarters, with over one million hits, we might take up an offering to cover this major investment. These hydrogen cars cost range from $100,000 to $one million dollars.
Beyond cost, for all those pushing “new technology” wheels there are some drawbacks other than initial cost. While there are 180,000 gas stations in the US there are only 61 hydrogen refueling stations of which 25 are in California. Another concern is that “the process of making hydrogen can create greenhouse gases.” Oh. No one told us that before!
You surely will not miss seeing it tooling around Santa Ana. No, it will not be painted green. My guess is that Art will use Orange with green pinstripes to be politically correct.
Pretty clever Larry! I wish! Luckily I have a gas expense account at work, but most people don’t.
We need to open up both coasts to more drilling and open up whatever reserves like in Alaska. Now is not the time to get caught up in enviro ridiculousness. Not when our entire economy is going down the drain due to the high oil prices.
Larry,
$600 a month isn’t all that bad, considering my wife’s Durango cost nearly that much. The lease also includes maintaining the new technology as well. http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/
If they were to use straight electricity and simply crack (electrolysis*) water it wouldn’t produce any other by-products than O2, but right now they don’t ;-( for many commercial H2 outlets. One major problem is where to get it refueled. Presently there are very few commercial H2 stations that you can simply drive up to and purchase at will. Most are dedicated to servicing either fleet or demonstration vehicles. http://www.fuelcells.org/info/charts/h2fuelingstations.pdf Unless you also get the Home Energy Station along with the lease, and I have no clue about that at this point, but I suspect it would not be included.
However when used, no matter the source of fuel, it does in fact produce another green house gas. One that increases dramatically the ability to capture infra-red radiation, far more effectively (3x) than CO2 does.
Bottom of page: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/appd_d.html
By removing H20 the resulting release of heat is 36%, removal of CO2 allows 12% of the heat to be released, thus water vapor has 3x that of CO2.
Still I think it would be a great alternative, and frankly I want one NOW!!!
*somewhere you have to have electricity produced by something, hopefully by photovoltaic panels.
Art. I was trying to point out that, instead of getting all caught up in the glitz and glitter of new technology, we sometimes need to look ahead. I recall “cause and effect” diagrams when I actually had a job. Just like Ethanol, which is only 80% as efficient as traditional unleaded gas, there is a drawback to hydrogen technolgy. Specifically, like Ethanol it is energy inefficient. “It requires more energy to produce than it provides once it’s in the car’s tank.”
Yes, we do need to continue R&D investment to create alternate sources of energy.
Larry –
Actually, hydrogen is farther along than you think. Small water powered generators are already being made available to the public (next time I come across the video I’ll post it).
Technology always gets smaller and more efficient over time, so considering the promise of hydrogen, I think we ought to give it some. I also think the next step for vehicles will be hydrogen/solar hybrids to help close the efficiency gap.
SMS
Hydrogen isn’t as close as you say Sarah. the fuel is hard to store and its currently energy inefficient, requiring more energy to produce than it provides once it’s in the car’s tank. Creating hydrogen also creates greenhouse gases and there’s a very limited number of refueling stations.
But its nice to know alternatives are available once the economies of scale go to ground make alternative fuel vehicles more affordable for the general public.
Bi-cy-cle
In the US born-E book of the future, electric powered bicycles and automobiles will replace the internal combustion engine autos for local transportation needs.
Tri-cy-cle
Even solar powered tricycle’s are just around the corner.
Dan –
… as close as I say? How close did I say it was? Only closer than Larry thinks. How can you quantify that; or are you just looking for a debate? I really have to find that water powered generator video now!
SMS
TV news is reporting today that Honda just announced it is coming to market with a “mass produced hydrogen car”. No mention of pricing, but maybe there is hope —-
Older than –
Umm.. read this article again, I think we’ve already said that. 😛
SMS
Buffy, I watched this interesting show about fusion power. Fusion reactors are not used now because the current available fuel (R-something) produces a molecule that destabalizes the containment chamber eventually causing it to fail. However there is another Fusion reactor fuel produced by the sun and deposited on every planet as a dust that produces a fusion reaction without the destabilizing molecule.
This means that a small amount of this fuel can produce huge amounts of power cleanly. It can be used in electric generating plants and in automobiles (maybe flying cars?) in the future. Several private companies and countries are mounting space expeditions to ‘mine’ this resource on our closest neighbor, the moon.
It looks to me like we are in a position similar to the chick before it hatches from the egg. We are getting cramped, our resources are running out, and we are preparing to change the whole economic dynamic by breaking out. I cant wait.
We’re not ready for fusion I don’t think. I hope I’m wrong.
SMS
Popular mechanics had a recent report covering work being performed with “fusion” at MIT. Let me share two sentences of the text:
“Fusion is fragile, difficult to maintain and ultimately its own worst enemy. But it is not dangerous.”
Is that the Tokamak fusion reactor?
From 1982 to 1997 this reactor operated in New Jersey.
The book of the future on page 39 says that its energy comes from seawater.
Its no wonder the oil companies spent so much on scare tactics to shut it down.
I read in the papers that the technology to produce alt energy sources is 10, 20 50 years off into the future so we still need to depend on big oil for our current energy needs.
The Tokamak was on the drawing boards in the 1960’s, built in the 70’s/80’s and operated in the 80’s and 90’s. Then it was cut up and buried next to the EV1 electric car.
Art -Now is not the time? You are ridiculous. Global warming is real.
Cook, you got it. There are non-polluting and cheap forms of transportation readily available. And adding other clean energy sources to those modes can expand our minds while reducing our asses.
I see wind and solar along with gyroscopic momentum as more the answer to ground transportation (as opposed to water). Electric seems likely as the initial boost. Wind is generated with movement and can easily be harvested while driving. Solar cells on hoods can collect energy during commutes and in parking lots.
We may even be able to collect enough energy to supply power to our homes in the evening hours.
Mary.
No one is closing their mind to alternate forms of energy. With regard to wind power let me provide the following:
In the year 2004, wind energy in California produced 4,258 million kilowatt-hours of electricity, about 1.5 percent of the state’s total electricity. That’s more than enough to light a city the size of San Francisco.
More than 13,000 of California’s wind turbines, or 95 percent of all of California’s wind generating capacity and output, are located in three primary regions: Altamont Pass (east of San Francisco – a portion of which is shown on the right in this photo from NREL), Tehachapi (south east of Bakersfield) and San Gorgonio (near Palm Springs, east of Los Angeles). In 1995, these areas produced 30 percent of the entire world’s wind-generated electricity.
According to the Electric Power Research Institute, the cost of producing wind energy has decreased nearly four fold since 1980. The levelized cost of energy from wind turbines in 1993 was about 7.5 cents per kilowatt/hour while electricity (in 2003) was around 13 cents per kilowatt/hour.
Better yet let me share data from a US Dept of Energy pie chart that answers the question.
“Where does CA get its energy?”
Solar 0.2%
Wind 1.8%
Biomass 2.1%
Geothermal 4.7%
Nuclear 12.9%
Coal 15.7%
Hydroelectric 21.1%
Natural gas 41.5%
As you can see by the above data wind, solar biomass and geothermal collectively represent less than 10% of today’s energy generation. That is not to say we shouldn’t try to increase their slice of the pie.
Another consideration is cost. The following cost data is from an unnamed Internet source but it is revealing.
“1.83 cents per kilowatt hour for nuclear, 2.07 cents for coal, 3.52 cents for natural gas”
Mary. What does Art have to do with your comment?
Larry,
Please stop freaking out about your own addiction to oil and get on the bus to rehab. It is not ridiculous to want to clean up our toxic waste. Those who actually are hard at work discovering methods to get us off oil are rather nobel.
And forget about nuclear energy. It ain’t happening. Wind technology will cost about 10% or a fraction of what nuclear would cost.
Mary,
Wind power generation also kills raptors and other birds. It’s becoming a greater concern in the areas that produce wind energy.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20050701-1112-ca-deadlywindpower.html
http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/1985
http://essexcountywind.wordpress.com/2008/03/06/windmills-increase-raptor-deaths/
http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2008/03/06/windmills-increase-raptor-deaths/
http://www.peregrinefund.org/pdfs/Commentaries/WindPosition.pdf
Treehugger.com disputes this fact but has not conducted their own research only comments on it.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/04/common_misconce.php
You can’t power the nation on wind power. Or even solar for the present time, like it or not it’s a fact. Unless you have some revolutionary news you would like to share with the rest of us…? Please explain your understanding of gyroscopic momentum, you referenced above in post #14.
Some of us are disabled and can’t ride bikes, so what do you suggest for them? Getting through life on their Go-Go Scooters?
You can hope and dream all you like, the reality is we are ALL dependent on oil right now. Unless you grow all your own food, and your fiber needs for clothing, ride a generator bike or solar cells to send your emails and surf the web, are self sufficient in all regards, you’re in the same boat as the rest of us. Please row with us in attempting to find our future needs without plunging us all back into a dark ages.
This is not a personal issue at all, many of us who disagree with your opinions are very educated on the subject. Personally I have been advocating solar and H2 for more than 30 yrs. I have been inside of 2 nuclear facilities and seen many design plans and their life cycle studies in the ’70’s & early ’80’s from around the world, several in France and Italy that our family friend worked on. Along with the microwave transmission of energy from space produced from solar cells. This has been a subject I have studied since I was in jr. high school and that was a long time ago. The matter fascinated me enough that I read almost everything I can on the subject still.
If you have followed any of the links I’ve provided on AGW you must know by now that this is not a settled subject at all. Science keeps learning and questioning, that’s the scientific method.
Carl,
We all have to change the way we do things. Eco friendly road and building systems are being designed that will change our landscape. We are amidst “the green revolution”.
There are various “modern” wind turbines being designed and tested for bird safety that can replace the out-dated versions like at Altamont Pass. And wouldn’t you agree that we could design a safe urban system integrated into our commercial and residential building methods?
for more on wind technology…
http://www.avinc.com/wind.asp
http://www.magenn.com/technology.php
http://www.inhabitat.com/category/energy/
and regarding nuclear…
http://www.acfonline.org.au/news.asp?news_id=582&c=261221
and for gyro…
http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/Gyro-Dynamics.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segway_PT
This seems like a good way to create less paving on the earth’s surface and that means less “pot holes”. 😉
CO,
We all have to change the way we do things. Eco friendly road and building systems are being designed that will change our landscape. We are amidst “the green revolution”.
There are various “modern” wind turbines being designed and tested for bird safety that can replace the out-dated versions like at Altamont Pass. And wouldn’t you agree that we could design a safe urban system integrated into our commercial and residential building methods?
for more on wind technology…
http://www.avinc.com/wind.asp
http://www.magenn.com/technology.php
http://www.inhabitat.com/category/energy/
and regarding nuclear…
http://www.acfonline.org.au/news.asp?news_id=582&c=261221
and for gyro…
http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/Gyro-Dynamics.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segway_PT
This seems like a good way to create less paving on the earth’s surface and that means less “pot holes”. 😉