Honda Fuel Cell Clarity....Can't even give me one!

A recent article

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/2017-honda-clarity-first-drive-review/

explained why one can drive a Honda Clarity Fuel Cell car basically for free. Needless to say, this attracted my attention, since I'm close to committing around $400 a month, plus insurance and electricity, to a Bolt. We're talking maybe $6K or more a year (including insurance and power) difference for three years.

The problem is that even though there's a hydrogen station a few miles from my home, it out of the way (wrong direction for my daily commute). Considering the Clarity's 250-300 mile real world range (not EPA) and my 90 mile daily drive, this means that pretty much every second day I'd need to spend a half hour going to fuel it. There is very little backup source for Hydrogen, even here in Los Angeles, along my normal drives.

By contrast, while the Bolt has less range, I can fill it up at home nightly, and if needs be at dozens of locations, not even counting my own workplace and my friends.

In summary, you can't even give me a Fuel Cell car. It's too impractical. Maybe someday there will be enough hydrogen stations, but that day isn't now.

A 200 mile class EV does the job so much better, and completely avoids the need for going to gas stations.

What? You don't have a hydrogen outlet in your garage?!

michael said:

The problem is that even though there's a hydrogen station a few miles from my home, it out of the way (wrong direction for my daily commute). Considering the Clarity's 250-300 mile real world range (not EPA) and my 90 mile daily drive, this means that pretty much every second day I'd need to spend a half hour going to fuel it. There is very little backup source for Hydrogen, even here in Los Angeles, along my normal drives.

Click to expand...

No doubt you've already considered the simple stuff like driving 55 instead of 65, tire pressure increase, and other hypermiling stuff. Might extend the refueling to every three days. To save $6K per year, this car would get my attention too. $18K is a lot of cake!

I think I'd be more concerned about counting on that one station to always be in service. Sounds like a plan B hydrogen station isn't that close to you.

Right now, hydrogen gas powered cars do not have the same convenience that plug-in EVs have with the possibility of home refueling, while hydrogen gas stations are less common than places to plug in a plug-in EV when refueling away from home.

You are very correct. You really don't want to have your car live or die by depending on ONE charging station. Hydrogen will never take off as a mainstream car fuel because there are too many problems.

Also, I cant see the financial sense of driving an odd-ball car (as a rental) for so much money, where you could BUY your car with those high monthly payments.

Also, you should not insist on an electric car that you will only charge every few days. The best use of an EV is to buy the one that your lifestyle needs, with the idea that you will charge it every day.. Like eating and sleeping. You should not pay for a much costlier car if you aren't really using its potential DAILY, or at least regularly... Its like Buying a minivan JUST because you may have to drive the whole family around a couple of times per year.....

If you must have an electric car, get the Bolt, and IMMEDIATELY put a 240v Level 2 charger in your garage. You will be glad you did... If you only needed a 45 mile drive between charging, I would also recommend the Nissan Leaf, which I have had for 3 years and works great for me at a lower cost.... good luck

powersurge said:

Also, you should not insist on an electric car that you will only charge every few days. The best use of an EV is to buy the one that your lifestyle needs, with the idea that you will charge it every day.. Like eating and sleeping. You should not pay for a much costlier car if you aren't really using its potential DAILY, or at least regularly...

Click to expand...

But it is valid to buy a electric car with enough range to handle your longest typical drives in the most adverse weather conditions and after the battery has degraded over the number of years you plan to own it. When you add those additional factors in you need significantly more range than the EPA figures would suggest. This is exactly why the 100-mile class EVs are inadequate for so many people.

SeanNelson said:

But it is valid to buy a electric car with enough range to handle your longest typical drives in the most adverse weather conditions and after the battery has degraded over the number of years you plan to own it. When you add those additional factors in you need significantly more range than the EPA figures would suggest. This is exactly why the 100-mile class EVs are inadequate for so many people.

Click to expand...

Meh, I complain about my range being cut in half in coldest of winter cold, but my longest typical round trip drives are the same in winter as they are in summer - around the national average of 40 miles, but usually much less than that. I think a lot of us have second cars that makes it a non-issue.

Toyota says that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles aren't much affected by cold temperatures.

"While electric cars can see their range figures tumble in very cold weather, as battery chemistry struggles to cope, Toyota says there are no such issues with its fuel-cell vehicles--a less-than subtle hint that it still sees fuel cells as the superior option."

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1090078_toyota-touts-cold-weather-performance-of-hydrogen-fuel-cells

Ironically, the majority of the places you can realistically drive them don't get very cold:

oilerlord said:

SeanNelson said:

But it is valid to buy a electric car with enough range to handle your longest typical drives in the most adverse weather conditions and after the battery has degraded over the number of years you plan to own it. When you add those additional factors in you need significantly more range than the EPA figures would suggest. This is exactly why the 100-mile class EVs are inadequate for so many people.

Click to expand...

Meh, I complain about my range being cut in half in coldest of winter cold, but my longest typical round trip drives are the same in winter as they are in summer - around the national average of 40 miles, but usually much less than that. I think a lot of us have second cars that makes it a non-issue.

Click to expand...

Everyone's need vary, of course. My point is that even if you drive a little less than 100 miles on a frequent basis there are still good reasons to buy a car with a range that's nominally a lot more than 100 miles.

As far as a second car goes - great if you have one. But if you do, and if you use it for trips beyond, say, 40 miles, then why not just buy a plug-in EREV/hybrid? Probably cheaper than a pure EV, and you'd probably end up with less gas consumption overall unless your second car is already a hybrid.

Yes, of course... you should not buy a 100 mile car if you need to drive 100 miles at a time... However, I think that most people think that EV range on a car is like just getting a bigger gas tank. They just think.. "I want a car that goes farther!"... The reality is that you are loading up your car with a bigger, heavier battery that you carry with you for the life of the car.

My feeling is that you should not OVERBUY capacity. I have a 100 mile range Nissan Leaf, and drive about 40 miles between charges daily, which at leaves me about 50% battery before I charge. That is perfect for me, and even when there is some battery degradation over time it will be OK... If once every few months, I need to drive 80+ miles between charges, I take my other gas burner car.

If I buy a 200 mile range Bolt, I will pay the extra $3-5k for the 200 mile range (more like 150 mile range) that I do not need on a daily basis before I drive it off the lot, AND that great battery will get old without its potential not having been used. It would be foolish for me to get a 200 mile car just to drive far once per month.

I would rather use up my smaller battery, let it degrade, AND THEN spend the money on a spanking new battery

SeanNelson said:

My point is that even if you drive a little less than 100 miles on a frequent basis there are still good reasons to buy a car with a range that's nominally a lot more than 100 miles.

As far as a second car goes - great if you have one. But if you do, and if you use it for trips beyond, say, 40 miles, then why not just buy a plug-in EREV/hybrid? Probably cheaper than a pure EV, and you'd probably end up with less gas consumption overall unless your second car is already a hybrid.

Click to expand...

Just so. My average and usual daily mileage is 100, so an electric Ioniq, just for example, would cover that just fine. But there are probably 20 days per year that I need to drive farther than that. I am not willing to rent or borrow a car that often. In the Bolt, I might need a gas car just one or two days a year, which is fine for me.

It's surprising (and annoying) to hear so often that an average American drives only 40 miles per day, so everyone should drive a Leaf. "Average driving distance" and "typical driving distance" are not relevant to the decision on how much EV range to buy. Unless you truly enjoy range anxiety and charging inconvenience, you should get a car with a much larger battery than you need on a typical day. Or get a gas car.

phil0909 said:

SeanNelson said:

It's surprising (and annoying) to hear so often that an average American drives only 40 miles per day, so everyone should drive a Leaf.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

...and have you noticed that every manufacturer making these claims uses a range that their car just happens to achieve? The latest one of these that I heard was for the Prius Prime - "the average commute is just 25 miles so you can drive all week on electric". Despite the fact that everyone else is claiming longer average commutes. :roll:

The ironic beauty of the original posting on this thread is that the author's complaints against a fuel cell vehicle almost exactly echo the general public's complaints against battery powered EVs.

phil0909 said:

It's surprising (and annoying) to hear so often that an average American drives only 40 miles per day, so everyone should drive a Leaf. "Average driving distance" and "typical driving distance" are not relevant to the decision on how much EV range to buy. Unless you truly enjoy range anxiety and charging inconvenience, you should get a car with a much larger battery than you need on a typical day. Or get a gas car.

Click to expand...

It's none of my business what cars people choose to buy. "Range anxiety" can happen with any car. If you purposely push your car beyond it's range limit, it happens - regardless if it burns gas, diesel, hydrogen, or electrons.

Funny that after years of driving a car with 600+ miles of range that it only took me about a week to figure out the driving radius my first electric car - and stay within it. 9,000 miles in 9 months of driving an 87 mile car...Zero anxiety. This in a city with very limited public charging. It does however require a basic understanding of what the letter E on the fuel gauge means, and how many miles are left before E happens. Apparently, some people still have a problem with that.

Yes, I agree that there is no range "anxiety"... When you charge your car, and you do your daily driving, you KNOW you will not be stranded. If you have a new place to go, you would google the distance anyway, and you can make the decision to charge somewhere along the way if it makes you feel more comfortable.

Range Anxiety comes from three places... 1) The "fake media". They LOVE to find things wrong with products, and "how could this have been prevented". If you found a pill that could make you live until 120 years old, they would say.. "Why couldn't they make it to live 150?" 2) People that DONT have an EV and want to chime in on what they heard in the "fake media" (see #1), and 3) Automotive Noobies that never have gas in their cars, get stranded when they run out of gas, and use their cars without ever doing any maintenance on them... They are the least ones to be justified in crying for range anxiety.... If you gave them a 400 mile range EV car, they would complain that that car gives them range anxiety and they would run out of electricity because they were lazy to charge...

I wouldn't say range anxiety doesn't exist, only that it's self-inflicted. I've done stupid range anxiety causing stuff in my VW like seeing if I could make a round-trip drive from Phoenix-Vegas on one tank (made it back on fumes).

+1

Hello,

I'm sitting here wondering - has anybody bothered to mention where H2 comes from? And has anybody thought about the economics? The nice thing with the fuel cell is that the barrier to making hydrogen is extremely high. Nobody is casually start steam reforming natural gas. The problem with electricity is that there are a hundred different ways to make it - nuclear, hydro, gas turbine, coal, wind turbine, solar, wave, tidal, biomass, oil, you name it. It's a big field, there's a lot of competition, and it doesn't make sense to invest in something that may or may not pay you in the future. Fuel cells, on the other hand are good because they rely exclusively on a well developed industry that has full control over the supply. This insures the future viability of the business. And who wants to invest their money in something that may or may NOT work out? I predict seeing a LOT more interest in H2 vehicles in the near future, even without changes in environmental regulation. Some can point to the fact that H2 production is now a point source of CO2 emissions, and yes, this is true, but the same can be said for conventional power plants as well, which are just as efficient if that's the sort of thing you care about.

But then again, It's your 401(k), stick it wherever you want.

Pigwich said:

...Fuel cells, on the other hand are good because they rely exclusively on a well developed industry that has full control over the supply. This insures the future viability of the business. And who wants to invest their money in something that may or may NOT work out? I predict seeing a LOT more interest in H2 vehicles in the near future, even without changes in environmental regulation.

Click to expand...

There's a big difference between industry pushing a solution and the marking buying it. Fuel cell vehicles suffer from the same "chicken and egg" problem with fueling stations that electric vehicles did (and to some extent still do). But electric vehicles can bypass the problem because people have ready access to their own "fuel" (electricity).

Electric vehicles now have enough of a head start that I can't see how fuel cell vehicles can catch up. They may be able to succeed in some niche markets like transport, but I don't see them becoming a mainstream solution for the average car buyer.

Pigwich said:

Hello,

I'm sitting here wondering - has anybody bothered to mention where H2 comes from? And has anybody thought about the economics? The nice thing with the fuel cell is that the barrier to making hydrogen is extremely high. Nobody is casually start steam reforming natural gas. The problem with electricity is that there are a hundred different ways to make it - nuclear, hydro, gas turbine, coal, wind turbine, solar, wave, tidal, biomass, oil, you name it. It's a big field, there's a lot of competition, and it doesn't make sense to invest in something that may or may not pay you in the future. Fuel cells, on the other hand are good because they rely exclusively on a well developed industry that has full control over the supply. This insures the future viability of the business. And who wants to invest their money in something that may or may NOT work out? I predict seeing a LOT more interest in H2 vehicles in the near future, even without changes in environmental regulation. Some can point to the fact that H2 production is now a point source of CO2 emissions, and yes, this is true, but the same can be said for conventional power plants as well, which are just as efficient if that's the sort of thing you care about.

But then again, It's your 401(k), stick it wherever you want.

Click to expand...

This is a confusing post. You make statements that seem to side with fuel cells and then knock it down. e.g. "The nice thing with the fuel cell is that the barrier to making hydrogen is extremely high"
That's not a nice thing. If it's difficult to extract hydrogen from natural gas, then that's one strike. Then you go on to say, "The problem with electricity is that there are a hundred different ways to make it ". That's not a problem, that's a positive. If you live in a sunny climate, use PV, if you live in a windy area, use wind, etc. Nobody makes hydrogen at home.
"It's a big field, there's a lot of competition, and it doesn't make sense to invest in something that may or may not pay you in the future"
Lot's of competition will ensure the price is competitive. You seem to favor a monopoly. PV will continue to perform as long as the sun keeps coming up. I think we're good there.
" Fuel cells, on the other hand are good because they rely exclusively on a well developed industry that has full control over the supply. This insures the future viability of the business"
Again, putting my faith in Big Oil to do the right thing? I don't think so. What exactly insures the future viability of the business? Using electricity to extract hydrogen from natural gas that I then ship to a storage facility where it is pressurized for 20 minutes between uses, only to be run through a Rube Goldberg contraption to turn it back to electricity but with 20% less than I started with? Viable for who? The truck driver delivering the hydrogen. All because of range anxiety?
Please tell me this post was sarcasm.

Well... Do YOU see any way for hydrogen to NOT be a monopoly? And why on earth would one ever do anything to cloud their own future? There's a ton of gas out there that's just going to waste, and burning it in CNG cars just doesn't have the techno-futurism that a fuel cell car does. They use fuel cells in space! Also hydrogen is steam reformed out of natural gas, not electrolyzed. That method is a disaster that makes up for less than 5% of H2 production for a good reason. I invite others to weigh in.