Honda Fcx Clarity Declared 2009 World Green Car

Discussion in 'FCV or Fuel Cell Vehicle' started by msirach, Apr 9, 2009.

  1. fuzzy

    fuzzy Mild hypermiler

    Actually it is:
    Greenhouse_Gases_Gallery
    Wikipedia:Greenhouse_gas

    But see my previous post for my objections.
     
  2. bic590

    bic590 Active Member

    Fuzzy, you make a good point. The water vapor does stay in the atmosphere for a substantially less amount of time. However, I think part of the key lies in what the difference in water production between the two methods would be. If we were able to increase the humidity consistantly it could be a problem. It would be interesting to hear some of the estimates of where the cutoff would be between how much usage would end up being the tipping point to making things worse.

    I think this could be worth while to spend some thought on, for someone who knows much more than I do about this, because Hydrogen is an abundant resource and quite easy to make (If we ever run out of natural sources or need more than the aforementioned processes can produce there is always the ability to create it by passing a large voltage through water!).
     
  3. Right Lane Cruiser

    Right Lane Cruiser Penguin of Notagascar

    Manuel, as long as the PHILL isn't providing a significant percentage of your fuel, it isn't much different than a Volt which needs occasional extension of range via liquid fuel. I could live with that as well. :thumbs_up:
     
  4. msirach

    msirach Well-Known Member

    About 200 Honda Clarity cars will be leased over a period of 3 years per Honda's website.

     
  5. PaleMelanesian

    PaleMelanesian Beat the System Staff Member

    I have to go with Harry on this one. 300 leases compared to 13 million auto sales last year - basically nothing.
     
  6. fuzzy

    fuzzy Mild hypermiler

    Here are some extremely coarse estimates.

    Your source indicates that total water contributes roughly 2.5X as much GW as total CO2. Other sources suggest that water vapor averages very roughly 10,000 ppm, about 25X as much as CO2. That means per unit of concentration, water is roughly one-tenth as strong a greenhouse gas as CO2.

    As best I can tell, gasoline puts out roughly equal volumes of CO2 and water vapor, while hydrogen fuel puts puts out twice as much water and no CO2. Averaged together with the above ratio, that means gasoline fuel emissions are about 5 times worse than hydrogen fuel emissions, in short-term results.

    There there is the atmospheric lifetime issue. One source on wikipedia lists water vapor as averaging 9 days, or 1/40th of a year. CO2 lifetime is complex, ranging from literally a few years, to effectively centuries or multiple millenia. So CO2 lasts 100 to 400,000 times longer than water vapor, depending on who is speaking.

    Taken together, that puts a energy unit from burning gasoline being somewhere in the range of 500 to 2,000,000 times stronger impact on AGW than the same energy unit from hydrogen fuel.

    We will run into many other serious problems before water vapor from hydrogen fuel becomes an issue.
     
  7. Earthling

    Earthling Trying to be kind to Mother Earth

    I'm sorry, but it's absurd to even consider the production of water when fuel is burned. It essentially has no effect on our atmosphere. Producing water is far more desirable than producing CO2.

    http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleevapotranspiration.html

    During a growing season, a leaf will transpire many times more water than its own weight. An acre of corn gives off about 3,000-4,000 gallons (11,400-15,100 liters) of water each day, and a large oak tree can transpire 40,000 gallons (151,000 liters) per year.

    Someone want to suggest that we defoliate the entire planet because plants give off water? Of course not, especially since plants also change CO2 into O2.

    Even considering the production of water from burning fuel is laughably frivolous, considering that 71 percent of the Earth's surface is covered by water, and the percent of water produced by burning fuel is inconsequential.

    Harry
     
  8. bic590

    bic590 Active Member

    Very true statement, in fact we already have many serious problems ahead. Since I had previously heard quite a few arguments against the use of hydrogen from a professor of mine in college (an Earth and Atmospheric professor) I still just wonder if we are shifting problems around. For example working so hard to free ourselves from gasoline that we still have the same environmental problems as before... But you do give some good food for thought. But regardless I still applaud people for finding new ways to store energy.
     
  9. Kacey Green

    Kacey Green Well-Known Member

    There is a station within 10miles of my house importing Canadian H2, at least until they get some locally sourced hydrogen.
     

Share This Page