MARIO'S RANT: A moment of Clarity

Published: Saturday | December 26, 2009


Mario James, Gleaner Writer

'Top Gear', the humorous and entertaining show for gearheads, aired an episode sometime ago showcasing electric cars. As the programme wound down, host James May (otherwise known as Captain Slow!) said even the finest electric cars have been made redundant by a maroon pillbox called the Honda Clarity.

Now, for those who don't know, Clarity is a fuel cell-powered compact that seats four, has a 136hp electric motor, and is powered by hydrogen, the universe's most abundant element. The little Honda's only emission is plain ol' H2O. It seats four, and, according to Capt Slow, will do 0-60 in about nine seconds.

Now this is by no means the first fuel cell-motivated econobox. Most of the auto industry has tinkered with the idea of tapping into this seemingly infinite resource. The downside is the huge amount of energy needed to liberate hydrogen from its parent molecule, water. So while it looks good on paper, most other companies have shelved the idea because of this exorbitant cost. Oil is much easier to mine, from a cost-to-produce standpoint.

So it stands to reason that something has changed, and it has. The Clarity has been tested for the past three years as the FCX, and in that time Honda fine-tuned a hydrogen mass-distribution system to the point where it can actually lease cars. It can do this because it has harnessed the power of the sun to split the water molecule, and has been able to distribute hydrogen to gas stations.

So Clarity lessees (up to the time of writing, no one can buy one of these wonders outright, and getting on that waiting list is like trying to matriculate to Harvard) as of now can roll up to one of several pumps in Carolina, push a very familiar-looking nozzle into a very familiar tank gooseneck, turn a knob, pull a trigger and the hydrogen tank will be filled. It takes less than three minutes, May says.

Hydrogen is pumped by the kilogram, and the energy in a gallon of gasolene works out to be close to that of a kilo of hydrogen. Clarity is said to give 61mpg - approximately 240 miles on a single tankful.

May went on to postulate that the purple jellybean was the most important car for the past 100 years, not because of its quiet propulsion technology, not because it has regenerative braking (energy reclaimed by this method is stored in a lithium-ion accumulator). Clarity does have a battery, but for its hydrogen-distribution system. He said that because the new technology did not alter the way we think the driving experience should be (no 16-hour recharges or wimpy 80-mile ranges), it was a very commercially viable solution. It is a logical argument.

Since Clarity debuted, there has been a wave of anti-engine sentiment from the tree-huggers saying the writing is on the wall for the piston-propelled engine lovers. So much so that General Motors, itself a pioneer in hydrogen-fuel-cell technology, has coughed up the headline, 'GM is betting $1 billion that the end of internal combustion is near'. Heady stuff, indeed.

On that same Top Gear episode, Jay Leno, car collector extraordinaire, alluded that the same effect the adoption of the car had on the horse and buggy was about to take place. Horses were put to pasture, he said, thus freeing non-hydrogen-powered cars to be worshipped. A bit of dry English wit, I suppose, but that was the gist of his argument. Cars like the Clarity are the wave of the future, he intimated.

fuel-cell vehicles

However, pound for pound, when it comes to power output, not too many power-train engineers would argue against the fact that reciprocating internal-combustion engines are better suited to automotive environments. And BMW has shown that piston power can run on hydrogen - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ykl2PH2B-tM.

Instead of what must be the horrendous cost of retooling for fuel-cell vehicles, wouldn't it be easier to adapt the technology to existing infrastructure? The emissions generated are exactly the same (BMW's engine produces only H2O) and there are engines installed in cars now that are just as efficient. Plus, there are folks out there to fix them. What do you think?

mario.james@gleanerjm.com

 
 
 
The opinions on this page do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. The Gleaner reserves the right not to publish comments that may be deemed libelous, derogatory or indecent. To respond to The Gleaner please use the feedback form.