Go Back   Sports Car Forum - MotorWorld.net > Television and Movies > Top Gear Discussion > Top Gear UK - Episode Discussion



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-01-2008, 04:22 PM   #1
vexor
Regular User
 
vexor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,600
Default Top Gear - S12 EP7 - 14th December, 2008 - Discussion

James May travels to California to take a look at what is being hailed as the future of motoring, the hydrogen-powered Honda Clarity. On the test track Jeremy Clarkson has a high-voltage encounter with the Tesla, a battery-powered super-car, and Richard Hammond takes an affectionate look back at 50 years of Touring Car racing. The star in the reasonably priced car is Tom Jones, and there are some festive fun and games in the studio to boot.
....
__________________
www.MGReviews.com
Car and Motorcycle Reviews & Photography
Facebook | Twitter| Instagram

vexor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2008, 11:57 AM   #2
toffytofik
Regular User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 219
Default

ROFL! Gotta feel for the Morris Morina owners club after this one
toffytofik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2008, 01:01 PM   #3
10000rpmlover
Regular User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: the US of A, sometimes also London
Posts: 466
Default

I thought James May did a brilliant review of the FCX clarity, he makes it seem almost like a good buy, but... I have not seen hydrogen fueling stations anywhere in NJ, second, and please bear with me you chemist and environmentalist freaks, if Hydrogen is the most abundant thing in the universe and you can even get it with a few solar panels and tap water... why in the living hell do I have to pay through the nose for it? if this thing was cheap enough I may consider it

on to the tesla test, I just knew this would happen, pretty good car, overpriced and battery power still needs to come along for it to be reasonable
__________________

twin turbo, AWD, AWS, 6spd, drop dead gorgeous, what's not to like? mitsubishi should go back and make these again
10000rpmlover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2008, 06:06 PM   #4
Evo8
Regular User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 74
Default

Originally Posted by 10000rpmlover View Post
I thought James May did a brilliant review of the FCX clarity, he makes it seem almost like a good buy, but... I have not seen hydrogen fueling stations anywhere in NJ, second, and please bear with me you chemist and environmentalist freaks, if Hydrogen is the most abundant thing in the universe and you can even get it with a few solar panels and tap water...
More than a few solar panels, more like a solar garden if you want to fuel your car that way.
It takes 20 to 100 square meters with cheap panels to produce a kilogram of H2 per day, depending on the latitude (within US; for most part, 20 to 40).

Assuming you normally drive 12,000 miles a year, and the car is an efficient fuel cell hybrid, you'd need 200-250 kilos a year, somewhat less than 1 per day.

Still, such a solar garden is going to cost as much as the car itself, or more if you account for the electrolysis hardware, the compressor and the tankage.
Less space is required with more efficient solar panels, but they cost more.


why in the living hell do I have to pay through the nose for it? if this thing was cheap enough I may consider it
Actually hydrogen today only costs about $2.5 per kg, which is roughly equivalent to an Imp. gallon in energy capacity. So it's around as much as gas, plus-minus depending on oil and natural gas price.

The cost would be higher if it was electrolyzed rather than extracted in petrochemical processes as today.
__________________
The replacement for displacement.

Last edited by Evo8; 12-15-2008 at 06:12 PM.
Evo8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2008, 01:30 PM   #5
silentm
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Basel, CH
Posts: 1,865
Default

the biggest problem when looking at hydrogen as your fuel of the future is that it's terribly energy inefficient.

i will summarize some points that i found while reading my chemistry book:

at first glance hydrogen can produce a massive amount of energy per mass unit 120 MJ/kg that's really impressive and about 3 or 4 times better than petrol. but when we are talking about fuel in a car we have to look at how much energy it can produce per unit of volume and here hydrogen puts out a measily 2.8 GJ/m³ (that's 1000 litres) at 35 MPa in its gaseous state. (i don't have the exact number for petrol here as it's not written in the text, but when i look at the graph i have it's about 1/10th of petrol)

when hydrogen is a liquid things look a bit better, where we have about 8.5 GJ/m³ but that means cooling the hydrogen to 20 K (that's -423 °F and -253 °C) which takes in itself a huge amount of energy.

all numbers are taken from Housecroft and Sharpe, Inorganic Chemistry 2nd Edition (german version)

now the biggest problem probably is obtaining the hydrogen... the easiest way to obtain it is splitting water into Oxygen and Hydrogen. sounds good eh? but then you have to realize that this process needs energy too and in the end we are just recombining the 2 elements to form water again.

so the energy we invested in the first place will be produced again when burning the hydrogen so we end up neither gaining nor loosing energy. which is not very efficient right?

so in the end i think i will have to quote what nthfinity said once on this board (sorry i don't know the exact wording but it went something like this) "the future of transportation is not the car it will be something completely and radically new."
__________________
"Some say that the outline of his left nipple is exactly the same shape as the Nürburgring, and that if you give him a really important job to do, he'll skive off and play croquet... all we know is, he's called the Stig."

The Top Gear Wikiquote
silentm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2008, 01:48 PM   #6
silentm
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Basel, CH
Posts: 1,865
Default

Originally Posted by 10000rpmlover View Post
second, and please bear with me you chemist and environmentalist freaks, if Hydrogen is the most abundant thing in the universe and you can even get it with a few solar panels and tap water... why in the living hell do I have to pay through the nose for it? if this thing was cheap enough I may consider it
well sorry for being a freak but if something is the most abundant thing it doesn't mean that you can just pick it up lying around on the street.

as James said "it always sticks to something"

this is just a not complicated way of saying that hydrogen is an extremely reactive element and thus can only be found entrapped in a chemical bond with a different atom or whatever you like.

for example petrol or gas is just carbon with a huge amount of hydrogen in it. C6H14 - Hexane has roughly speaking 2 hydrogen atoms per Carbon atom. so now you can say that in oil (this is just an example) hydrogen is the most abundant element in petrol (petrol is made up of over 100 different alkanes (that's what you call these carbon chains with hydrogens attached to them))

so basically being ignorant and asking for a low price jsut because something is abundant is not going to get you anywhere, because you will have to pry the hydrogen out of it's already existing chemical bond.

hey if you have read until here then congrats to you
__________________
"Some say that the outline of his left nipple is exactly the same shape as the Nürburgring, and that if you give him a really important job to do, he'll skive off and play croquet... all we know is, he's called the Stig."

The Top Gear Wikiquote
silentm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2008, 03:52 PM   #7
Evo8
Regular User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 74
Default

Originally Posted by silentm View Post
but when we are talking about fuel in a car we have to look at how much energy it can produce per unit of volume and here hydrogen puts out a measily 2.8 GJ/m³ (that's 1000 litres) at 35 MPa in its gaseous state. (i don't have the exact number for petrol here as it's not written in the text, but when i look at the graph i have it's about 1/10th of petrol)
There is that issue, but it's not as big as it seems. A modern midsize car has at least 150 of total volume. Each cubic foot being 7.5 gallons, a 20-gallon fuel tank is just about 3 cubic feet, 2% of the car.

1/10 is about right. So if you had the car using compressed H2, the tanks would take 12% to 20% depending on the pressure (there are 70-MPa storage tanks on the market).
But then a 20-gal tank is for a 600-mile range, which you don't really need. These 20-gal tanks are there only because it costs very little to enlarge the tank. With half that capacity, the tank will take just 6%-10% of the car. It's not a big compromise.

Of course, tankage weight needs to be worked on, so that this tank doesn't weigh 200kg.


when hydrogen is a liquid things look a bit better, where we have about 8.5 GJ/m³ but that means cooling the hydrogen to 20 K (that's -423 °F and -253 °C) which takes in itself a huge amount of energy.
Yes, LH2 is pretty much out of the question for civilian non-aerospace applications. Energy loss is just the smaller of the problems. A bigger one is when you spill some LH2 on your car and it cracks apart there, due to a thermal shock. Or when you're about to drive after spending a week on an air trip, and find out the tank is empty, because LH2 has all evaporated... so you have to call a special emergency refueling vehicle.

OTOH, the military is already interested in liquid hydrogen. Fuel cells are not necessary. And cost is less of an issue there.


now the biggest problem probably is obtaining the hydrogen... the easiest way to obtain it is splitting water into Oxygen and Hydrogen.
Actually the easiest way is steam reformation of natural gas. Electrolysis only sounds easy.


so the energy we invested in the first place will be produced again when burning the hydrogen so we end up neither gaining nor loosing energy. which is not very efficient right?
It's the same way with batteries. Of course there's no perpetuum mobile. We're running out of cheap portable fuel (oil), it will have to be central power plants (at first coal, later probably nuclear, by 22nd century possibly fusion), and simple power carrier.
__________________
The replacement for displacement.
Evo8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2008, 07:55 PM   #8
leblanc2.0
Regular User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: O´Porto - Portugal
Posts: 292
Exclamation


Blog Post by Rachel Konrad:

For the record: Thanks to The Stig's impressive turn behind the wheel, the Tesla Roadster gets a higher ranking in Top Gear's performance board than a Porsche 911 GT3. Jeremy Clarkson, a die-hard "petrol head" with a clear bias against green cars generally, said that it must be "snowing in hell" because he had such a great time driving the Roadster and now considers himself a "volt head" thanks to the Roadster's amazing performance. This is amazingly high praise from Clarkson, whose entire schtick is to savage even his most beloved petrol-guzzling sports cars.

However, I would like to clarify a couple things. Never at any time did Clarkson or any of the Top Gear drivers run out of charge. In fact, they never got below 20 percent charge in either car; they never had to push a car off the track because of lack of charge or a fault. (It's unclear why they were pushing one into a garage in the video; I'll refrain from speculating about their motives.)

The "brake failure" Clarkson mentions was solely a blown fuse; a service technician replaced the Roadster's pump and it was back up and running immediately. They were never without a car, and the Top Gear testing did not put the Roadster's reliability or safety in question whatsoever. Again, I'm going to leave out comments as to why the good folks at Top Gear might have mischaracterized the blown fuse as a brake failure, which is was decidedly not.

I am also unclear as to why Clarkson said it took 16 hours to recharge the Roadster without qualifying that statement at all. The vast majority of people who have taken delivery of their Roadsters (and there are more than 100 of them now) have much faster systems that recharge from dead to full in as little as 3.5 hours.

However, I really enjoyed Clarkson's suggestion that, if people want to race Roadsters 24-7, they should simply buy two.

Rachel Konrad
Senior Communications Manager
Tesla Motors Inc.

[Source: Dvorak.org]
leblanc2.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2008, 09:10 PM   #9
5vz-fe
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,167
Default

LOL ....someone is desperate for customers.
__________________
5vz-fe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2008, 09:58 PM   #10
HeilSvenska
Regular User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The OC™
Posts: 4,881
Default

Yet another reason never to cite Top Gear as a factual source.
__________________
HeilSvenska is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2008, 03:03 AM   #11
Evo8
Regular User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 74
Default

Originally Posted by 5vz-fe View Post
LOL ....someone is desperate for customers.
Actually, I was pretty convinced they faked the "running out of power" even when watching this.

It's not the first and not the second time Top Gear plays that scene.


The comment about 16 hours is somewhat ambiguous. It's 16 hours if you have the most basic household wiring, not designed for an electric stove, multiroom AC, or other high-power amenities. However, if you install some higher-amperage wiring, which costs between $100 and $300, then you can indeed recharge an electric car quickly, probably in the 3.5 hours he quotes.
Evo8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2008, 03:21 PM   #12
silentm
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Basel, CH
Posts: 1,865
Default

Originally Posted by Evo8 View Post
Of course, tankage weight needs to be worked on, so that this tank doesn't weigh 200kg.
you're right, range isn't much of a problem. it just goes down to the weight and how to find safe ways to store the hydrogen in a car when it crashes, oh the horror if actually one would explode. basically no chance of survival.


Originally Posted by Evo8 View Post
Actually the easiest way is steam reformation of natural gas. Electrolysis only sounds easy.
but that's completely beside the point. as with the natural gas it isn't "emission free" as you would like to have it. when you are reforming it you have CO2 emissions. so it isn't really "green"

Originally Posted by Evo8 View Post
It's the same way with batteries.
i was simply saying that it wasn't an elegant way to solve the problem
__________________
"Some say that the outline of his left nipple is exactly the same shape as the Nürburgring, and that if you give him a really important job to do, he'll skive off and play croquet... all we know is, he's called the Stig."

The Top Gear Wikiquote
silentm is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump