2017 Honda Clarity Fuel Cell Lease Pricing Lower Than Expected at $369 a Month. BEV, PHEV “Coming Soon”

4 months ago by Mark Kane 95

Honda Clarity Fuel Cell

Honda Clarity Fuel Cell

The upcoming 2017 Honda Clarity Fuel Cell will be more affordable than earlier expected as the Japanese company announced a $369 a month lease price, with $2,499 down at lease signing.

Honda Clarity Fuel Cell Boasts EPA 366-Mile Range Rating, Best of Any Zero-Emission Vehicle

Honda Clarity Fuel Cell Boasts EPA 366-Mile Range Rating, Best of Any Zero-Emission Vehicle

Over 36 months (and 20,000 annual mileage) the cost will be $15,783 (average of $438) not including tax, registration or official fees.

Honda (like Toyota before it) also adds up to $15,000 of free hydrogen at participating hydrogen stations during first three years, and 24/7 roadside assistance as well as up to 21 days of an Avis Luxury Rental in California.

Honda’s hydrogen flagship is rated at 366 miles of EPA range and unlike Toyota Mirai can accommodate five passengers.

By the end of this winter Clarity Fuel Cell to be available at 12 dealerships in California. Expansion of hydrogen fuel stations in the future will help to adds more dealers at later stage according to Honda.

“Retail leasing will be available to residents who live or work near Honda’s network of 12 approved fuel cell vehicle dealerships located in select California markets. This network includes six dealerships in Southern California, five in the Bay Area and one in Sacramento. Honda will further develop its dealer network as consumer friendly hydrogen fueling stations become available.

The Clarity Fuel Cell received an EPA driving range rating of 366 miles and fuel economy rating of 68 MPGe (miles per gallon of gasoline-equivalent) combined, giving it the best range rating of any zero-emission vehicle, which includes fuel cell and all-electric cars, in the United States.”

There is some further fine print for “retail” lease consumers eligibility which basically states the main drawback of the tech at the moment – infrastructure:

“Clarity Fuel Cell will be available to residents of California living or working within a 10-mile radius of a hydrogen fueling station.”

Below: A few pics caught of the Clarity Fuel Cell interior from the LA Auto Show this week (by InsideEVs contributor Tom Moloughney), overall impression was excellent inside – very comfortable and had a high end feeling.

Honda Clarity Fuel Cell Interior (InsideEVs/Tom Moloughney)

Honda Clarity Fuel Cell Interior (InsideEVs/Tom Moloughney)

Honda Clarity Fuel Cell Interior (InsideEVs/Tom Moloughney)

Honda Clarity Fuel Cell Interior (InsideEVs/Tom Moloughney)

Steve Center, vice president of the Environmental Business Development Office at American Honda Motor Co., Inc. said:

“Launching the Honda Clarity Fuel Cell at an affordable lease price will enable more consumers to enjoy the benefits of this spacious and well-equipped fuel cell vehicle. With an EPA driving range rating of 366 miles, fast refueling and a growing network of hydrogen stations in key California markets, the Clarity Fuel Cell offers an experience on par with traditional gasoline vehicles.”

Honda BEV and PHEV to follow Clarity Fuel Cell

Honda BEV and PHEV to follow Clarity Fuel Cell

Plug-in versions to follow

Official Honda Clarity Fuel Cell website (see here) clearly indicate that there are two plug-in versions coming to the U.S. – all-electric and plug-in hybrid (exptected 40 miles of range).

With that said, the launch of the plug-in varients are probably at least one or two years ahead of us.

Honda Clarity Fuel Cell Rear Seating (InsideEVs/Tom Moloughney)

Honda Clarity Fuel Cell Rear Seating (InsideEVs/Tom Moloughney)

Tags: , , , ,

105 responses to "2017 Honda Clarity Fuel Cell Lease Pricing Lower Than Expected at $369 a Month. BEV, PHEV “Coming Soon”"

  1. Kdawg says:

    I hope the plug-in versions look better. :/

    1. WadeTyhon says:

      Yeah it doesnt look amazing, but compared to Toyotas recent green vehicles this Honda is a looker. 🙂

      I mostly do not like the running vertical lights on the front of the car. But they wouldnt kill it for me if it had good EV range.

      1. Kdawg says:

        I’m not a fan of the frumpy rear either.

  2. Eco says:

    Does the PHEV have a Fuel Cell or ICE range extender?

    1. jimijonjack says:

      FUEL CELLS “IN CARS” …..”MAKE NO SENSE”

    2. wraithnot says:

      A range extender only makes sense if you can fuel it when you are far from home. So a hydrogen fuel cell range extender would make absolutely no sense given the number of hydrogen stations in operation.

      Hydrogen fuel cell cars are essentially commuter cars that use very expensive fuel. And then only if there is a hydrogen station somewhere near home, work, or between the two.

      1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

        These stations are or will be in a couple of years all over Japan and Western Europe. And even in the US, driving from South to North California and a bit further is more than commuting. Fuel is “free” so far, not expensive.

        1. wraithnot says:

          Toyota seems less optimistic than you. Even if you include all the “open in 2017 and beyond” stations on the Toyota Mirai Hydrogen station map, the only new stations outside of LA and the SF bay area are in San Diego and Santa Rosa. No trips to Vegas. No trips to Oregon. Basically no trips outside the state except to Reno and Carson city. Maybe Japan and Europe will be different. But I don’t plan on living in Japan or Europe any time soon.

        2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          zzzzzzzzzz said:

          “These stations are or will be in a couple of years all over Japan and Western Europe.”

          And how many years have “fool cell” fanboys like you been making that false claim?

          Given the fact that sales of fool cell cars have been even less than their very limited production would support, I think we’ll soon see the end of wasting obscene amounts of money building even more hydrogen fuel filling stations.

          1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

            Pu-pu,

            Funds are already assigned for some 50 stations in California, few more in US North East.
            400 stations are planned by German government by 2023 in Germany alone. You already can drive across Europe using retail hydrogen stations only.
            70+ stations are open in Japan with 90 planned for 2017, 160 by 2020 with strong government support.
            These are well known facts.

            Long term station cost is around 5% of car TCO, similar to chargers for battery cars. I.e. nothing special you should cry about.

            Nobody has planned to sell more FC cars that it is sold now. The production will get closer to mass in 2020 or so, and so far everything goes as planned. Similar story was when Prius was released – first generation was sold in low numbers, Japan only, and later it got into millions despite all the rambling by backward thinking fudsters.

            Your religious idea that you should pay triple price for environment trashing 4600 lb behemoths and suffer hour long charging times during long distance travel is ludicrous. Leave it where it belongs and makes economical and environmental sense – commuting and short distance travel. Different transport applications require different technologies, whatever makes sense.

            1. wraithnot says:

              And yet according to both the California Fuel Cell partnership and Toyota there are no plans for any new stations in California outside of densely populated areas. No trips to Las Vegas. No trips to Oregon and Washington. Basically no trips anywhere out of the state except Reno. Maybe things will be different in Europe and Japan. But at least in the US, a very expensive vehicle that uses very expensive fuel and can’t go on road trips will have a really hard time gaining market share even if the first few thousand are highly subsidized.

      2. SJC says:

        If all Honda dealers had hydrogen fueling stations, you could plan a trip.

        1. wraithnot says:

          I was going to say that I doubt Honda dealers along interstate 80 in places like Winnemucca and Elko Nevada would pay $1,000,000 for a hydrogen fueling station. Except that I can’t even find any Honda dealers along interstate 80 between Reno and Salt Lake city. So I definitely won’t plan any hydrogen powered trips across Nevada.

          1. SJC says:

            You weren’t anyway, so no problem :-))

  3. Stimpy says:

    It’s going to need to be a lot cheaper than that to generate any significant interest in such a monstrosity coupled with limited refueling locations.

    1. mx says:

      Exactly. Since NO-One is expanding hydrogen fueling stations.
      It’s a Total Dead End.
      Only built to use CARB Credits.

      Honda roll out a National FIT EV Program.

      1. ffbj says:

        The proof is in the pudding. If FCV credits were removed or reduced, would they even make them anymore? Just a hypothetical.

        1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

          How silly you need to be to assume that automakers invest billions for few thousands of ZEV credits in the US that are worth much less than initial $5,000 market price years ago?

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            zzzzzzzzzz said:

            “How silly you need to be to assume that automakers invest billions for few thousands of ZEV credits in the US that are worth much less than initial $5,000 market price years ago?”

            One thing we can be certain of: When a Big Oil shill like zzzzzzzzzz makes a statement defending mass production of fool cell cars, it’s complete B.S., every time.

            An Electrek article reports:

            “The automakers who are pushing fuel cell are also primarily located in Japan and Korea where governments are offering subsidies for the vehicles and financing for the required infrastructures.”

            Full article here:

            https://electrek.co/2016/04/26/automakers-fuel-cell-hydrogen-electric-vehicles/

            1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

              Electrec is must read source of trustful information for every true faithful Musk follower 😉

              Happy worshiping, Elon still loves you, dear cult members. He clearly stated that your faith will be rewarded, so it must be absolute truth 😐

  4. no comment says:

    the design isn’t great but it’s better than that of the toyota mirai. but this car is headed in the right direction: zero-emissions, comparable range to what you can get in an ICE and comparable refilling time.

    fuel cell technology has a long way to go, but if they can come up with vehicles that have compelling features, it will motivate more effort to sort out the underlying challenges with fuel cell practicality and infrastructure.

    i expect that the honda PHEV is going to be a gasoline/battery hybrid. that would be a car that honda could sell now. fuel cell/battery hybrids are for future development.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “no comment” commented:

      “…it will motivate more effort to sort out the underlying challenges with fuel cell practicality and infrastructure.”

      Good luck in figuring out how to change the laws of nature, which is what you’d need to do to transform compressed hydrogen into a practical fuel. FCEVs will only become practical if they quit trying to fuel them using hydrogen gas.

      1. no comment says:

        i don’t find criticisms of hydrogen fuel cell from the “it can’t work” naysayers to be very persuasive. that said, i am very skeptical about the prospects for hydrogen fuel cell technology. but it undeniably offers some favorable attributes that are lacking in BEVs.

        it is easy to say that the way to go forward is PHEV (gas/battery)) and BEV. the problem with that strategy is that it is a limited strategy, primarily to cars. BEV alone doesn’t work because you can’t replace an entire automaker’s lineup with equivalent BEVs. at present, FCEV is the only technology that offers the possibility of a zero emissions technology that can scale to an entire line of vehicle types.

        there are some huge “ifs”, though. it is unclear how well FCEVs would hold up in long term, daily use. would FCEV cars prove to be a maintenance nightmare? there are questions about how scaleable a hydrogen fuel cell infrastructure would be even if you could deploy one. for example, honda claims that the clarity can be refilled in 3 minutes. but if you pulled up to a hydrogen dispenser and filled up in 3 minutes, would someone be able to immediately follow you also be able to refill in 3 minutes?

        however you look at it, contrary to the wild claims of ev enthusiasts, ICEVs are going to be around for a while.

        1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

          no comment:
          “but if you pulled up to a hydrogen dispenser and filled up in 3 minutes, would someone be able to immediately follow you also be able to refill in 3 minutes?”

          Yes, consecutive fill
          capability is basically requirement for California. Page 55:
          https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/ab8/ab8_report_2016.pdf

          Newer higher capacity stations like “CAR-200 provides a peak rush-hour capacity of up to 100kg in 3 hours on one fueling hose”.
          http://h2logic.com/products-services/h2station-car-200/
          Cost may be around 1 mln EUR:
          http://www.wallstreet-online.de/nachricht/8861157-nel-asa-has-secured-repeat-order-for-two-new-hydrogen-stations-and-has-initiated-production-of-new-generation-h2station

          “is unclear how well FCEVs would hold up in long term, daily use. would FCEV cars prove to be a maintenance nightmare” – Current low volume proof of concept production is what is supposed to answer this question and confirm technology in practice. So far it goes more or less well as expected.

          1. no comment says:

            do you know what provisions were made for cold weather operation? in particular, in cold weather, water could freeze in the exhaust system and create a blockage unless there is a heating element in the exhaust to make sure that water doesn’t freeze. if a puddle of water forms under a FCEV, and the puddle freezes and someone later slips on the frozen puddle, would the owner of the FCEV be held liable? would the automaker and/or auto dealer be held liable? is this a product liability issue?

  5. wraithnot says:

    Hmm- at $369 a month plus for 36 months plus $2,499 down you would pay a total of $15,783 to drive the car for 3 years. If they also give you $15,000 of free hydrogen then you are basically paying for the hydrogen and getting the car for free. That doesn’t seem like a very good business plan for Honda . . .

    1. mx says:

      You can lease a BMW i3 Cheaper and drive that Nationally.

      1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

        If you are looking for gas guzzlers to drive cross continent, there are really much better choices than i3 Rex with 2 gallon gas tank and motorcycle engine 😉

        1. Nick says:

          Not all i3s have gas tanks. All can be driven nationally.

    2. Bob says:

      They literally are giving them away for free!

    3. Josh Bryant says:

      You forgot about the 7 ZEV credits that offset $5k/each in fines.

      So the business plan is, give the car away, save $35k in fines. Hope the driver doesn’t use a ton of hydrogen.

      1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

        The dropped to much less than $5,000 long time ago. Musk was publicly whining about lack of their value recently:
        http://www.hybridcars.com/musk-calls-out-carb-for-pathetically-low-zero-emission-credit-standards/

        1. wraithnot says:

          Fuel cell vehicles with at least 300 miles of range qualify for 9 California ZEV credits.

        2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          More B.S. from InsideEVs’ #1 Big Oil shill.

          Most of the subsidies “fool cell” cars earn come from Japan and S. Korea, not from California and other CARB states.

          For example: “Japanese Government To Offer $20,000 Subsidy On Fuel Cell Vehicle Purchases”

          http://insideevs.com/japanese-government-offer-20000-subsidy-fuel-cell-vehicle-purchases/

          1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

            Is it a requirement to fail on elementary school math test to join Musk worshiper cult?
            $20,000 per car * 3,000 production is $60 millions. Maybe it is beyond your ability to comprehend numbers, but believe me it is by orders of magnitude less than what is required to make new technology car model. Nobody would do it without ability scale it up in perspective, just for temporary subsidies.
            OK, you don’t know what is “order of magnitude”. Many times less. “Billion” is a number with many many zeros.

    4. You didn’t factor in the value of the CARB-ZEV credits.

      They are valued at $2500 to $5000 each, and hydrogen cars earn 9 credits:

      9 * 2500 = $22,500
      9 * 5000 = $45,000

      How does that lease look now? Plus, they meet all regulatory compliance to sell oodles of gasoline powered cars.

      1. wraithnot says:

        I still bet it would be MUCH cheaper for Honda to just buy the credits from Tesla 🙂

  6. Yogurt says:

    5k a year fuel allotment!!!
    Hydrogen must be expensive which probably means it is also inefficient…

  7. Four Electrics says:

    Open California hydrogen stations now number 28, with more on the way.

    Meanwhile, Nissan is displaying a funky FCEV at the Guangzhou Auto Show.

    1. wraithnot says:

      According to the Toyota Mirai web page, only 23 Mirai compatible stations are open. Of those, 13 are in the LA area, 6 are in the bay area, and only four are elsewhere. And even the “open” stations come with this disclaimer:

      “DISCLAIMER
      Commissioning has been completed and the station has opened to the public. An open station may be offline from time to time. For real-time updates on open station status, Mirai owners can refer to the H2 Station Finder App.”

      1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

        This is “soft open” status, when station is just opened for public testing. It changes to normal retail status later.

        Meanwhile California superchargers are overcrowded and at peak summer time sometimes are throttled to as low as 35 kWh. As was predicted long time ago, electric grid isn’t made from rubber and can’t just provide megawatts out of thin air in an eye blink.
        https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/some-california-superchargers-not-providing-maximum-charging-rates.75612/
        You don’t need all this “waiting forever waiting for charging” nonsense if you want to travel from Los Angeles to Bay Area or Lake Tahoe in hydrogen car, just like in gas car, and you don’t need to pay $1000/month for lease/fuel/maintenance.

        1. wraithnot says:

          Only a few superchargers near large population centers in California tend to get crowded at peak times. And stations are constantly being added or expanded to meet rising demand (several new stations on I5 between LA and San Francisco have opened since the infamous Tejon Ranch backup). On a 5,000+ mile road trip in September I didn’t have to wait once to use a supercharger. I’ve run into the slower charging speed two or three times, but I don’t remember it dropping below about 50 kW. And charging stops for the past couple of months have all been at the expected speed.

          1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

            The ratio of Tesla cars to chargers and service centers is increasing, not decreasing. Paid charging from next year should alleviate the problem in the future somewhat. Ability of electric utilities to handle peak loan in summer in South or in winter in North is not increasing though.

            It may be all fine for limited number of semi-luxury cars, but it is still beyond my comprehension how some zealots like Pu-pu can claim that battery is the one and only one chosen path for absolutely everything related to cars/trucks/buses. It works for some, but it clearly doesn’t scale so well across all model ranges, price ranges and all travel distances.

            1. wraithnot says:

              There are currently 20 new Tesla supercharging locations under construction in North America. And from a greal deal of personal experience, most of the stations far from a coast are not busy at all. The locations cost something like $100,000 each to build and the property owners often lease the land for a token amount (Tesla will pay $1 a month for the location in Groveland, CA). Some property owners even pay for the electricity in each for having people frequent their business while charging. Tesla is also aggressively placing level 2 chargers at hotels and parking garages since charging at your destination is the most convenient way to fuel you vehicle.

        2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          zzzzzzzzzz caused more FUD to appear on my screen:

          “Meanwhile California superchargers are overcrowded and at peak summer time sometimes are throttled…”

          Cherry-pick much, when you’re doing your serial Tesla bashing? 🙄

          Reality check: Waiting lines at Supercharger stations are about as rare as waiting lines at gas stations.

          1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

            Really? Then why do Southern California Supercharger Stations have attendants/valet-service seven days a week?

            “The iconic Bjørn Nyland reports on Tesla Supercharger stations in Southern California that now have attendants seven days a week, during busy times. . . . if a customer pulls in and there is no charger available, the attendant can take their keys and charge it for them while they relax or get other tasks done.”

            Tesla Supercharger Valet Service In Action – Video

    2. ffbj says:

      Meanwhile there are hundreds of houses within a few blocks radius of my house that can recharge an ev if you own one of reach.
      Yours is a worthless argument.

      1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

        Just tell about these outlets to pure Tesla owners who paid $70k – $150k for their miracle tech and than are forced to wait for an hour at peak times waiting for supercharger access in the middle of California, than wait until it will charge.

        1. wraithnot says:

          The Model S was declared the “most-loved” vehicle in the recent Strategic Vision survey of owners. So people that actually own and drive the car don’t seem to be nearly as bothered by the charging situation as you are.

          1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

            I don’t dispute that Tesla owners are mostly happy with their cars. Otherwise they would probably just would not buy or sell.

            But I don’t see how it can scale up in practice to replace every car or truck on the road any time soon without help from other zero tailpipe emission technologies.

            1. wraithnot says:

              A combination of BEVs and plug-in-hybrids can definitely scale to cover a very sizable portion of US passenger car needs: http://insideevs.com/dont-worry-us-grid-capable-of-supporting-up-to-150-million-electric-vehicles/
              Plug-in vehicles have hit 10% of new cars sold in parts of California. They are very common where I live and work and so far things seem to be going OK. There are also electric car startups popping up all over the place, but I’m not aware of a single hydrogen car startup in the US.

              Long haul trucking is a different beast and different technology may work better for that sort of application. There is even a startup called Nikola motors attempting to build a hydrogen powered semi. Maybe they will have better luck in that market.

        2. It’s always the non-Tesla owner’s telling us how bad it is.

          1. Nick says:

            “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

  8. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    Really a tragedy to see all this time, effort, and money wasted making and advertising such a horribly wasteful and wholly impractical technology.

    Just think of how much the EV revolution would benefit if all of that were directed toward developing better BEVs and/or PHEVs!

    And “fool cell” cars are the opposite of “green” tech. Producing, distributing, and using hydrogen fuel in a “fool cell” car is actually more polluting than making and burning gasoline, when comparing the amount of energy contained in each fuel!

    1. Four Electrics says:

      It’s amazing to see the price of solar, wind, and batteries drop exponentially, and yet so sad to see many people repeat the Elon-FUD that similar technological and economic advancements cannot happen to other technologies, especially considering that progress in renewables will directly drive hydrogen develolment, which, at scale, can be stored for less than $1 per kWh. Critical thinking is rare in today’s world.

      1. wraithnot says:

        Critical thinking would imply that money would be MUCH better spent on research to make hydrogen production and distribution more efficient, reliable, and economical rather than attempting to scale something up long before it is ready.

        1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

          It was already done over many years. At this time it is already researched and technology is more or less ready for starting to scale up, even if further improvements are expected.

          1. wraithnot says:

            The free market seems to disagree with you. Even with free fuel, Toyota had to significantly drop the lease price on the Mirai to get even a little interest. And every time I stop at Harris Ranch, I check out the hydrogen station. I have yet to see anyone using it.

            1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

              It is not Toyota’s or Honda’s or Hyundai’s goal to make some status symbol toy and sell as many as possible for as much as possible. Their goal is to make limited number of proof of concept cars similar to mass market cars and test them in practice. Mass production is planned as next stage few years later.

              And by the way, stop at Harris Ranch is optional when driving between Bay Area and Los Angeles in 366 mile Honda Clarity FC.

              1. wraithnot says:

                Based on Toyota having to drop the lease rate on the Mirai, I’d say the experiment is giving them a pretty clear answer.

                “And by the way, stop at Harris Ranch is optional when driving between Bay Area and Los Angeles in 366 mile Honda Clarity FC.”

                The 366 mile rating is a combined highway/city value and even the highway portion of the test cycle averages 48 mph. The most direct route between LA and the bay are is on interstate 5 which is all highway with a speed limit of 70 mph along most of it (and people tend to drive much faster). So no, you will not make it between LA and San Francisco (383 miles) in a Honda clarity without stopping at Harris Ranch unless you drive MUCH slower than all the other cars. You won’t even make it from the LA area to Hayward in the bay area unless you really slow down.

      2. Yogurt says:

        What Elon said is not FUD as they worked out the math from a physics perspective and it is impossible for FCEV to compete with BEV from an effiency standpoint…
        Critical thinking is unfortunately rare in the US but it was used to realize BEV will always be cheaper more realible and more effiecent than FCEV…

        “Automakers entrenched in fuel cell hydrogen are succumbing to physics and going electric”
        https://electrek.co/2016/04/26/automakers-fuel-cell-hydrogen-electric-vehicles/

        1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

          Repeating religious talking points and using “physics” in the sentence to imply credibility doesn’t make it sound credible, when serious scientific studies show otherwise.

          1. wraithnot says:

            What serious studies are you referring to? This study seems to disagree with you: news(dot)stanford(dot)edu/2016/11/14/battery-electric-cars-better-choice-reducing-emissions-fuel-cell-vehicles/

            1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

              “In the study, the researchers created future scenarios for the Town of Los Altos Hills, a sunny, affluent community of about 8,000 residents located in Santa Clara County ”

              Obviously this one doesn’t qualify as serious study 😉

              Cost target for FC system:
              https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/15015_fuel_cell_system_cost_2015.pdf
              $40/kWh in 2020, $30 later – on par with ICE.

              Hydrogen production cost:
              http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/08/f18/fcto_2014_electrolytic_h2_wkshp_colella1.pdf
              http://energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/doe-technical-targets-hydrogen-production-electrolysis
              “U.S. DOE P&D cost goals of
              $2 to 4/gasoline gallon equivalent (gge) (dispensed, untaxed) by
              2020”
              Liquid hydrogen production:
              http://www.idealhy.eu/uploads/documents/IDEALHY_D3-16_Liquefaction_Report_web.pdf
              “The specific internal costs amount to about 1.72 €/kg LH2, based on an estimated
              investment of 105 million €, a payback period of 20 years, an internal rate of return of
              10%, assumed annual fixed costs for operation and maintenance of 4% of the investment,
              the costs for electricity set to 100 €/MWhel and the operating hours per year to 8,000.
              When the assumed power costs are halved to 50 €/MWhel, 1.38 €/kg LH2 follow. For
              comparison, the costs of hydrogen generation from large-scale steam methane reforming
              are currently 1.00 – 1.50 €/kg.”

              DOE goal for batteries:
              http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/06/f32/es000_howell_2016_o_web.pdf
              “2020 GOAL: Reduce the production cost of an EV battery to $125/kWh”
              “cost parity with ICEs could be reached in the ten years.”
              But this ICE cost parity is assumed for 45 kWh pure battery car. Obviously such 45 kWh battery car, while competitive for commuting and city travel, can’t be competitive in long distance travel even with today’s 366 mile/5 min. refuel Honda Clarity FC, or hybrid cars, not to mention future cars 10 years later.

              1. wraithnot says:

                The original question was a comparison of efficiency between BEVs and fuel cell vehicles. Your first link lists the efficiency of producing hydrogen of 53% without even considering the losses incurred in compressing the hydrogen and converting it back to electricity in a fuel cell. Thus the efficiency of just one step in the process is already less efficient than charging and discharging a battery. Storing electrical energy in a battery is MUCH more efficiency (>90%) than using it to generate hydrogen, compressing that hydrogen, and then running it through a fuel cell.

          2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            “zzzzzzzzzz” said:

            “…serious scientific studies show otherwise.”

            Fake studies funded by Big Oil think tanks are not “serious”, Mr. Big Oil shill.

            Contrariwise, here is an actual serious study: “Time To Come Clean About Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles”

            https://cleantechnica.com/2014/06/04/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-about-not-clean/

            1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

              Is it requirement to fail to understand what the word “study” means when becoming certified Musk worshiping zealot?
              I guess yes, otherwise you would not be linking some cheerleader and fanboy site post as “study”.

      3. Djoni says:

        Are you faking it or you just can’t apply reflection to your comment?
        Once you said that EV ain’t clean because they are using fossil base fuel indirectly in their electric supply, but you just don’t add thing up to the fact that any kWh made with cleaner mean, you just be better use to shutdown dirty coal, oil, or whatever exist today.

        That would be a real green gesture.

        Please, make up your mind.

      4. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Four Electric said:

        “…the Elon-FUD that similar technological and economic advancements cannot happen to other technologies…”

        From your posts, it appears you are utterly ignorant when it comes to even very basic science an economics. You appear to think that the Laws of Thermodynamics didn’t exist until Elon Musk created them, and neither did the economic principle of EROI (Energy Return On Investment).

        I think it’s safe to say that at this point, anyone still claiming that hydrogen fuel can somehow magically be made practical in the future, either is saying things they don’t honestly believe, or else they simply aren’t interested in learning even very basic principles of science.

        Given your invincible ignorance, there doesn’t appear to be any point in continuing to argue with you.

        1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

          Pu-pu,

          Now you officially qualify as certified Musk zealot! Congratulations, great achievement!

  9. Bill Howland says:

    Well this car at this price will greatly increase sales. One fact that escaped me is, who is precisely paying for all these expensive Hydrogen dispenseries?

    The State of California?

    I’m sure that the surfeit of sales of the Clarity will be used as full justification of the need to quickly build more stations – that is why the question of who is paying for them is germaine.

    1. Four Electrics says:

      I believe they are codeveloped, with California kicking in 20 million dollars per year, or roughly 1/8000 of their annual budget.

      1. Bob says:

        Seems reasonable; 20 mill dollars to support 500 fuel cell cars, mainly leased to Hyundai and Toyota employees

        1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

          It is more reasonable that provide by orders of magnitude more millions to greenwashing financial pyramid that only produces all kinds of uber-rich people toys on taxpayer money, like 4600 lb electric behemoths that can’t drive over the state without stopping for an hour.

          1. Djoni says:

            And how much to you think this Clarity weight?

            Sure, not a featherweight and probably close to 3 800 pounds.

            1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

              I can’t find official data for it but last generation FCX was 3,527 lbs and this one supposed to be lighter. Anyway, even if it is more, the weight can and will be reduced in future models before they will go into mass production. There is no need to increase weight significantly if you want any range usable for long distance travel.

        2. Bill Howland says:

          Yeah Bob this is what gets me – $20 million from California and $48 million federally, for ultimately very few customers.

          I of course like the PH – EV solution for most people since it utilizes 2 very efficient and proven infrastructures – namely

          1). Our current electric ‘grid’ which will actually run better and more efficiently with millions of cars charging slowly over the midnight period.

          2). Our highly-efficient gasoline infrastructure – that EVEN if one HATES gasoline, it has to be admitted that PHEV’s using 1/5th to 1/10th of what would normally be used, while not perfect, is gobs better than any other solution. Since ICE’s will never completely go away, we might as well utilize an excellent easy to use ‘corner store’ solution for when we’re on vacation or taking trips – but be totally 100% electric when at home.

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “…who is precisely paying for all these expensive Hydrogen dispenseries?

      The State of California?”

      As I understand it, the buildout is being partly paid for by California taxpayers, and partly by funders of the California Fuel Cell Partnership, which includes the Big Oil companies of Chevron and Shell Hydrogen (source below).

      Just what fraction of building these boondoggles is paid for by taxes, I don’t know. But then, even 1¢ wasted on trying to turn a science fair project into a mass transportation fuel would be too much. Even in relatively liberal California, Big Oil lobbying clearly has far too much influence.

      source:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Fuel_Cell_Partnership#Full_members

  10. Get Real says:

    Which is still too much!

    Look, if Big Oil companies want to build H2 stations so they can sell the H2 they produce then I welcome them to do that.

    Notice that they are NOT DOING THAT and you will begin to understand what a sham H2 for light duty transportation is.

    H2 might make sense in some edge cases for energy storage of renewables that are overproducing per the demand at certain times but even in these cases their are often much more efficient/cheaper ways to store energy like pumped hydro and perhaps compressed air and flywheel storage.

    Likewise H2 (at least SOFC) might make sense for ships or even trains eventually.

    Once again, until I see Big Oil companies stepping up and building out infrastructure I will continue to view it as a largely taxpayer funded boondoggle put in place to delay/obstruct electrification NOW via PEVs.

    1. sven ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ says:

      There goes Get Real carpet bombing another hydrogen fuel cell vehicle thread.

      Get Real said:
      “Likewise H2 (at least SOFC) might make sense for ships or even trains eventually.”

      It already makes sense for trains and ships.

      The Alstom Coradia iLint hydrogen fuel-cell train “will enter service in Germany in December 2017, providing the world’s first hydrogen-powered passenger rail service. . . . Alstom claims enough onboard hydrogden storage capacity for a 497-mile range, and quotes a top speed of 87 mph.”

      http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1106965_alstom-hydrogen-fuel-cell-train-to-be-tested-in-germany

      1. sven ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ says:

        Royal Caribbean Cruses will start using hydrogen fuel cells to power the “hotel functions” on its ocean liners using H2 reformed from LNG.

        http://shipandbunker.com/news/world/144712-royal-caribbean-to-utilise-hydrogen-fuel-cell-tech-in-new-lng-powered-vessels

        http://www.rclcorporate.com/rcl-steps-to-the-fore-with-plans-for-fuel-cell-technology/

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          sven said:

          “…ocean liners using H2 reformed from LNG.”

          That may well be a practical use for fuel cell technology. Onboard reformers using a practical fuel, such as LNG or LPG, is a technology proven to be practical.

          So why would any informed, rational person continue to advocate for using compressed hydrogen fuel, when it has been both theoretically and practically shown to be utterly impractical and unaffordable?

          Only people who either don’t believe what they’re saying, or are too ignorant or crazy to understand even very basic science and economics, continue to advocate for “fool cell” cars.

      2. Djoni says:

        And for less than 50$US, you can go from Paris to Milan at 320 km/h on electric.

        Train are much more economical to be electrified.

      3. Djoni says:

        “The fuel-cell train’s initial deployment will be on a 60-mile line linking Buxtehude—a city just beyond Hamburg’s southern suburbs—and the beach town of Cuxhaven.

        This line is too far off the main network to warrant electrification, and is currently served by diesel trains.”

        I think it explain it better.

      4. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        sven said:

        “The Alstom Coradia iLint hydrogen fuel-cell train…”

        You seem to be arguing that just because public money is being wasted on boondoggles which are obsolete even before they are built, this somehow “proves” this can be practical.

        So which is it, sven: Do you not really believe the “fool cell” fanboy posts you write, or are you so ignorant or crazy that you actually believe your own B.S.?

        1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

          How, pray tell, is this obsolete or not practical? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

          1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

            What’s the matter Pu-pu? Cat got your tongue? Or do you have no answer to why zero CO2 and zero NOx hydrogen is obsolete and not practical compared to high CO2 & high NOx diesel train or your imaginary battery train charged with electricity from Germany’s coal-powered grid, which is also emits copious amounts of CO2 and NOx. I think it’s the latter.

  11. Get Real says:

    Got cut off.

    I was also going to say that Toyota is really starting to get their engineering butts kicked by first Hyundai with their excellent trio of Ioniq cars taking the best in class efficiency/other records from the Prius.

    And now Honda builds a more capable Fool Cell car then Toyota’s butt ugly and limited Mirage, er Mirai.

  12. -\_("~)_/- says:

    I’m truly puzzled as to how Sven makes that little character next to his name.

    1. e-lectric says:

      Viking character set.

    2. WadeTyhon says:

      I prefer your version. -\_(“~)_/- Is like if Picasso painted a portrait of Sven ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

      1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

        Neither version does justice in portraying my bulging biceps.

  13. wraithnot says:

    There are currently 20 new Tesla supercharging locations under construction in North America. And from a greal deal of personal experience, most of the stations far from a coast are not busy at all. The locations cost something like $100,000 each to build and the property owners often lease the land for a token amount (Tesla will pay $1 a month for the location in Groveland, CA). Some property owners even pay for the electricity in each for having people frequent their business while charging. Tesla is also aggressively placing level 2 chargers at hotels and parking garages since charging at your destination is the most convenient way to fuel you vehicle.

    1. wraithnot says:

      Oops- that was supposed to be a reply to zx10 made

    2. Bill Howland says:

      ” $100,000 for each supercharger “.

      Man that seems way too cheap.

      A typical 8 stall setup requires 4 cabinets of chargers (48 total), and the electric service which typically requires a contribution from Tesla to the serving utility for installation of the Medium Voltage (usually 15 kv) cable to the 500 kva pad transformer near the Corral.

      The Corral also requires at least 3 switchgear sections for the typically 800 amp 277Y/480 secondary service from this pad transformer.

      $100,000 can’t even begin to pay for all of this.

Leave a Reply