Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Honda Rolls Out New Zero-emission Car

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 16 comments


Handa’s new zero-emission, hydrogen fuel cell car rolled off a Japanese production line Monday and is headed to Southern California, where Hollywood is already abuzz over the latest splash in green motoring. The FCX Clarity, which runs on hydrogen and electricity, emits only water and none of the noxious fumes believed to induce global warming. It is also two times more energy efficient than a gas-electric hybrid and three times that of a standard gasoline-powered car, the company says.

Read the complete story here.

Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the News comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

This thread is closed for comments
  • -1 Hide
    KyleSTL , June 16, 2008 9:50 PM
    Handa, eh? I want one'a them!
  • -1 Hide
    KyleSTL , June 16, 2008 9:56 PM
    Seriously though, even though the car emits no emission doesn't mean it's a zero-emissions system. How is the hydrogen generated? If it's anything other than solar cells, wind, nuclear, or miracle (you know, act of God) it emits by-products (nuclear have by-products, but that's not the same as the general public and the media consider 'emissions').

    I must say, though, it's 10,000,000 times better than another E85 car (which perpetuates the problem and creates other problems with it).
  • -2 Hide
    sajohnson22 , June 16, 2008 10:41 PM
    It isn't a nuclear reaction. The reaction is a chemical reaction using hydrogen and oxygen. It releases electrons which are stored and used to drive the car.
  • Display all 16 comments.
  • 0 Hide
    sajohnson22 , June 16, 2008 10:48 PM
    Sorry, misread your comment. A potential advantage of hydrogen is that it could be produced and consumed continuously, using solar, water, wind and nuclear power for electrolysis. Even though methods of producing the fuel emit by-products, it is still much better than millions upon millions of cars producing by-products everyday.
  • 1 Hide
    themyrmidon , June 17, 2008 6:09 AM
    And GM started Project Driveway how many months ago (where they released a fleet of H2 Equinoxes for public trials)? Give credit where credit is due!
  • -2 Hide
    Kuro , June 17, 2008 8:32 AM
    The whole concept of Hydrogen car is stupid. Hydrogen does not occur naturally (unlike crude oil). You need to create liquid hydrogen using electricity. So where do we get electricity? From burning fuel, nuclear power plants, etc. We're simply shifting the emission from cars to power plants. This is a zero sum game. Nobody wins.
  • 1 Hide
    dyingcat , June 17, 2008 9:39 AM
    Even though producing hydrogen also creates emission, I'm guessing sources such as nuclear plants creates much less if compared to the power plant(engine) we have in cars until today.
    And at least we don't have to breath on it everyday, assuming you dont live next to where they produce the hydrogens :p 
  • 1 Hide
    Anonymous , June 17, 2008 12:25 PM
    Of course you have to create the hydrogen emission free. This doesn't make the concept stupid you numbnuts. It's created using Solar or wind energy. Also look up how hydrogen is created and used on Iceland.
  • 0 Hide
    velocityg4 , June 17, 2008 2:09 PM
    The problem is only 20% of US power production is Nuclear. A very large percentage is produced from fossil fuels. Coal, Natural Gas, Gas, Oil, Diesel and just about any other derivative.

    If you tried to make all vehicles hydrogen powered you would need a massive change in our current power infrastructure as it could not handle the energy demands. Solar, Wind and Water are unfeasable. To handle that level of production with solar or wind you would need to wipe out nearly all wild habitat and cover with solar panels and wind generators. Water would require damming up pretty much all water ways. All that is left is Nuclear which the environmentalists will fight tooth and nail. Even though they want a solution they are not logical enough to except our current best solution.

    Solar, Wind, Water = Joke (Why do you think Shell and other oil companies support these initiatives through advertising and some funding? They know that they are futile efforts that will keep them in power.)

    As for current Bio-fuels they require massive amounts of fuel to produce. If you tried to go all bio fuel then you would need to clear out great swaths of land to grow the crops just to fuel the industry then even more to produce fuel for Americas vehicles. In this scenario you would also clear cut most wild habitat. And use up nearly all fresh water sources to grow the crops.

    The only truly feasible solution is to build many nuclear reactors and produce hydrogen. But then I can just hear the moan's that we are putting too much water in the atmosphere changing world wide rain fall.
  • 1 Hide
    gm0n3y , June 17, 2008 6:10 PM
    How is water power a joke? In many parts of Canada our power comes from Hydroelectric sources and we export to the US.

    I agree that Nuclear power is a vastly better alternative (especially once we start making secondary plants that get energy from the waste) than fossil fuels (coal, oil), but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't use solar / wind when feasible to supplement our needs. Also, Uranium is a finite resource just like oil, so we can't use it forever.

    The ultimate (if impractical) solution? Two words: Dyson Sphere.
  • 0 Hide
    H8ff0000 , June 18, 2008 10:39 AM
    gm0n3yThe ultimate (if impractical) solution? Two words: Dyson Sphere.

    Nice. Or more practically, a Dyson Bubble.
  • 0 Hide
    gm0n3y , June 18, 2008 6:04 PM
    H8ff0000Nice. Or more practically, a Dyson Bubble.

    Checked wikipedia, interesting concept, never really put much thought into it. I suppose eventually humanity will end up putting solar arrays of some kind in orbit around the sun (assuming we can find a decent means of energy transmission and we don't destroy ourselves first).
  • 0 Hide
    I , July 7, 2008 9:17 PM
    Just imagine the rust problems with a car emitting so much water. Or even higher cost to use composite and other rustproof materials.

    Water power is a joke because even where there are large damns producing it, that cannot supply enough power for even the cars in that production region. It's like saying a fart powered car is viable because a fart has a tiny bit of fuel potential but there (thankfully) aren't enough farts to go around.

    Yes we should use solar and wind when feasible, as an ideal at least. The problem is practicality, that there is a finite budget with which we have to produce all power needed and developing several lower yield sources of power is a better project down the road, after we had already developed a better infrastructure for nuclear, and for more economical use of power. Right now for example, the average US household with someone home is consuming at least a few hundred watts. Is it our entitlement to this? Or is it something we are doing only until we run out of fuel reserves? It would have to be the latter, as the population is still growing and ultimately people and farmland take up the space till there is not enough room for a sufficient amount of power producing equipment even if all solar wind geothermal nuclear etc etc is used as much as possible.

    The answer is a new transportation system that does not have individuals driving cars, that everyone who needs to be mobile will have to live along a track for this public system or else generate their own power on-site for a personal electric vehicle, only being able to travel as much as their personal property (geographical) resources allow - not being sold power at all beyond an allotment for essential services, like minimal lighting, cooling, refrigeration, low power entertainment, communication.
  • 0 Hide
    I , July 7, 2008 9:21 PM
    Ilarge damns


    Sometimes I gives a damns and sometimes not so much.
  • 0 Hide
    gm0n3y , July 7, 2008 10:18 PM
    ILOLSometimes I gives a damns and sometimes not so much.

    Damn that's a big dam. Also, as far as I can tell, the US is the only western country with a birthrate higher than the death rate (i.e. domestic population growth).
  • 0 Hide
    I , July 8, 2008 12:33 AM
    But the US is only 5% of world population, that is not likely to change very much in the next few decades unless some unforseen thing happens like plagues or massive nuclear or biological wars somewhere - either in the US or another country with far larger population like India or China.

    Also, worldwide medical advances could easily cause average life expectancy to go up, putting most countries back into positive population growth. Even without that growth, we can expect many, particularly the developing countries to use more power per capita.