Government expenditures on practical applications such as military or infrastructure or even space exploration are not the same as “subsidies”.

There is a HUGE difference in the government going to a private company, or even working with a private company to build something useful, and giving a grant to a corporation, or subsidizing a particular behavior because it thinks it’s good for the general welfare. The former often gets us useful stuff, as discussed, but the latter has a much lower return on investment. One can make a good argument that the former is necessary, but the latter just isn’t. Sorry.

That’s hilarious. Hydrogen cars always run on fumes.

Microchips didn’t need massive government subsidies to get invented or widely adopted. Unlike alt-fuel boondoggles, the advantages of integrated circuits were legion.

That’s not true, not a word of it. The Minuteman missile program and the Apollo program paid for the early ramp up of microchips and mass production technology. Those were government programs. Massive, expensive ones. Government subsidies. The advantages of integrated circuits were theoretical, not widely understood, and, in some quarters, doubted.

(Should we talk about other high technology that required massive government subsidies, like the internet?)

When you leave energy policy in the hands of private corporations, you get E85. You like E85, right?

You know what I mean.

And to those that bemoan that the FCX Clarity is too elitist for Everyman: isn’t that part of the point? Why would Honda lease these cars to a single parent family that can’t afford the lease terms and won’t have the time and resources to do all that is necessary to participate in the project? Isn’t it a good thing that Honda’s tricking the rich people into testing their product so that when the poor people do get to have it, the fuel cell car won’t explode whenever you turn it on?

And really, to those that smack their lips and just say “No” to government subsidized technology initiatives left to die on the vine by the private industry: maybe I can trick you into reading this?

Maybe you should do the math on that claim.

I think you will find that it’s unlikely that “millions” of people are actually commuting that far. Maybe near a million, but not millions. The truth is that gas is likely less than half the total operating cost for most cars on the road today.

You are correct that the $600 price is not out of line to be the first in your neighborhood when they include insurance. I am sure they will have to turn folks away which means the price is not to high at all.

Big Oil?

Aren’t we jumping from one frying pan to another?

I’d prefer to NOT get into bed with them again as soon as I can get out.

Remember it is Chevron who currently holds the patents on the large format NiMH that would otherwise be powering a whole generation of EVs RIGHT NOW. They are the ones that sued Panasonic and Toyota to stop the RAV-4EV after GM sold Chevron the patent.

That’s going on a limb, right there. A limb that GM, Ford, Chrysler, BMW, M-B, Nissan, Subaru, and Toyota claim to be working on as well. Don’t see any prototypes being sold by them? Yeah, me neither.

Honestly, why is that such a bad thing? What is everyone so afraid of? Honda is merely going the distance with a new technology. They think it’s viable and they want to find out if they’re right by getting a couple hundred of them out there for people to try.

I hate to break it to those of you getting all bent out of shape over a $600 lease payment, but in case you didn’t notice it covered insurance as well.

$600 is pretty minor, really. There are millions of Americans who are paying that much each month in gas to commute to and from work to such unheard of destinations like Detroit, Atlanta, Chicago, San Franciso, Houston, and the list goes on and on.

Thanks for that.

EVs and Fuel Cells do not increase food prices as a fossil fuel substitute. Its main drawback is lack of infrastructure to refuel fuel cell vehicles – however production of hydrogen occurs at the fueling station rather than at a refinery which then needs to then be physically transported using its own fuel to bring to the masses. In addition as our technology increases and we develop cheaper and more efficient wind / solar / geothermal / hyrdo methods of harnessing energy to produce hydrogen and as fuel cells become more efficient it is one of our best options for global impact.

For the time being the primary refueling station for the FCX Clarity will have to use the PHIL home refueling station. The car will be used primarily as a commuting vehicle – its intended purpose (not for long cross country trips).

I’m not old enough but I bet when that fancy “gasoline” and “diesel” was first created and the cars which were very, very low technology at the time – the masses dismissed them and said how do we refuel it and it’s so expensive, etc. 100+ years later and it has permeated our entire society.

She should’ve moved to New Jersey, they still pump your gas for you out there.

(The previous is a fictional account.)

No offense, Stephan

99%+ of the available high quality wind resources in the US can’t be exploited due to:

A)The lack of high voltage transmission lines in the vicinity.

B)The peak wind resource does not correspond with the system demand for electricity.

Given some water, an access road and a big wind turbine you could electrolyze H2 all day long and truck it to market 50-200 miles.

Clarity looks better too, methinks.

just a quick note: I’m guessing that you live in a society where you have massive benefits from the collective works of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. The food on your table, the gasoline in your car, the roads you drive on, etc… is enabled by fossil fuels. Such fossil fuels currently rule the roost and your government and the collective advances they’ve enabled society to make over the past 150 years are mind boggling… and they allow you to sit at a computer and make posts on the internet…

It’s well known, that fossil fuels are a finite resource and that current consumption trends are not sustainable…
So, it’s probably a good idea to look for alternative methods for transporting goods [including food], creating electricity, etc…

As a side exercise, imagine how chaotic life would become if the fuel supply in your home country were cut in 1/2 tomorrow (or in 5 years)… [unless you live off the grid in a cabin away from people]…

Hybrids? uggghhh
Diesels? uggghhh
Volt or Tesla Roadster? uggghhh
E85? uggghhh
Hybrid Diesels? uggghhh
Fuel Cell Cars? uggghhh
1985 Chevy Chevette? Major doses of uggghhh
Turbo Craziness or AMG V12 or W16? yaaaayyyyy

I thought Honda was going to start selling those at-home fueling stations for these things so buyers could somehow convert their own natural gas line into a convenient way to fill up for the day?

Because we’re being told to fund it against our will.

You explore new technology and try to make it better.

You explore it. I prefer to spend my money elsewhere.

[T]he industries just need support to make their ventures worthwhile.

The fact that they need support is prima facie evidence that the ventures are not, in fact, worthwhile.

Sure, they make more corn as the market demands.

“The market” isn’t demanding this; government is.

Can we build more nuclear/wind/hydro/solar plants? Absolutely.

The relevant question is not “Can we?” but “Should we?”

Could you imagine people not trying out the microchip because it’s expensive, different, and no one has any software for it?

Microchips didn’t need massive government subsidies to get invented or widely adopted. Unlike alt-fuel boondoggles, the advantages of integrated circuits were legion.

Early adopters are always the intrepid few who see potential and gut it out while the mainstream industries catch up.

Early adopters don’t usually buy their geegaws with other people’s money. They also sometimes have the misfortune to “adopt” something that turns out to be a total waste of money, like HD-DVD.

You want to be an early adopter? Open your wallet. Stop telling everyone else that they have to open theirs.

A car can be an alternative to gasoline? Can I go to a Clarity station and pump my tank full of car? What kind of exhaust does burning a Clarity emit?

Here in Brazil they only make sense due to taxation. Gas gets taxed like, its ass out, so ethanol seems better. In my home state however, they don’t tax alcohol (ethanol)so much less than gas (in reality,E25, oh how’d I like to get some E0 gasoline!!!) so in my case I’ve been just pumping gas. Oh the looks I get from the greenies!! When I tell them F… the gov and until they restore prices to like, ummm, American levels, I’ll continue polluting more. At least I don’t have to go to the station once a week, which I do if I put alcohol into the car.