Skip to main content

Honda Rolls Out New Zero-emission Car

 

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.

  • KyleSTL
    Handa, eh? I want one'a them!
    Reply
  • KyleSTL
    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).
    Reply
  • sajohnson22
    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.
    Reply
  • sajohnson22
    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.
    Reply
  • themyrmidon
    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!
    Reply
  • Kuro
    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.
    Reply
  • dyingcat
    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
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • velocityg4
    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.
    Reply
  • gm0n3y
    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.
    Reply