Honda Hydrogen CRV Coming 2024

[SubaDuba420]

Honda announces a hydrogen-powered CR-V is coming in 2024
It's taking the place of the NSX at the Performance Manufacturing Center
https://www.autoblog.com/2022/11/30/...oming-in-2024/

Honda just announced that it will be making a hydrogen-powered CR-V in 2024. Where the hydrogen CR-V is being produced, though, is arguably just as interesting as the vehicle’s presence. If you had Honda’s Performance Manufacturing Center (PMC) on your bingo card, congrats!

We’ve long wondered what Honda would move into the PMC now that Acura NSX production is finished, but now the wait is over, and a hydrogen CR-V is the answer. No, we would have never guessed that either.

“Our associates at the Performance Manufacturing Center have really enjoyed the opportunity to successfully introduce several specialty vehicles into the market,” said PMC plant leader Gail May. “This facility is perfect for production of a new Honda fuel cell electric vehicle, as our small-volume capability enables us to really leverage the skill and expertise of our team to produce quality zero-emission vehicles here in North America.”

Honda didn’t reveal much about this upcoming fuel cell-powered CR-V, but there is one intriguing detail. In addition to being able to fill with hydrogen, you’ll be able to plug in (like an EV) to charge an onboard battery that Honda says will provide enough range for “driving around town.” It sounds a little like a PHEV, but instead of a gasoline engine as a supplemental power source, the CR-V continues on hydrogen power once the battery pack is depleted.

As you’d expect, this hydrogen CR-V is based on the new generation of CR-V just released this year. We all want more details, but Honda says additional information will be available closer to the vehicle’s introduction in 2024.

paging hydrogen haters.....

* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.

[Kostamojen]

If Hydrogen had the infrastructure, a plug in hybrid/hydrogen car would be the solution for both daily local driving AND easy long distance driving like current plug in hybrids are.

[dwf137]

Generation costs of Hydrogen aside, who can actually use one of these? Here's where you can actually refill a hydrogen car in the US:

[Sid03SVT]

Originally Posted by Kostamojen

If Hydrogen had the infrastructure, a plug in hybrid/hydrogen car would be the solution for both daily local driving AND easy long distance driving like current plug in hybrids are.

Are you talking a hydrogen fuel cell coupled with an engine that burns gasoline? or are you talking hydrogen fuel cell coupled with an engine that burns hydrogen? or are you talking about a hydrogen fuel cell coupled with plug in ability and a larger battery? (Mairai has a 1.4kWh) I feel like it's the third option.

A Mairai can go 357 to 402 miles on a tank depending on trim level, add in a larger pack that can handle ~42 miles like the PHEV Rav4 and I can see the argument, but I don't know why you'd want to go to a refueling station and have hydrogen stored in your car at 10,000psi when current similar BEVs can do 300-360mi of range, unless you're simply trying to get it done with smaller packs?

A Mairai is also ~4,300lbs as it sits; going from a Rav4 Hybrid to a Rav4 Prime in similar spec adds 500lbs going from a 1.6kWh Ni-MH battery to a 18.1kWh Li-ion; presumably the bulk of that weight is the battery pack, so you're Mairai, going from a 1.4kWh pack could be reasonably expected to gain 500lbs; so a 4,800lb sedan... the extra weight will impact efficiency and range, so the 18.1kWh pack wouldn't net 42mi like it does in the Prime.
If you do the math the prime is getting 2.3mi/kWh (42/18.1) at a 4,300lb curb weight, prius prime gets 2.8mi/kwh (25/8.8) at 3,300lbs, so at ~1,000lbs of curb weight you lose .5mi/kwh, so a 3,800lb mairai would get roughly 2.15mi/kwh or ~38miles of EV range from an 18.1kkWh pack.
I know, super dirty math with very few data points, and that doesn't consider the range/efficiency hit the FCEV portion will take while lugging an extra 500lbs of pack around, then there is the cost issue associated with using a larger battery pack, and, the mairai is already a ~50k starting msrp; there is a ~10k bump from the rav4 hybrid to the rav4 prime.

So anyways curb weight, cost, efficiency and an extremely limited hydrogen refueling infrastructure is probably why there isn't a PFCHEV on the horizon.

[SubaDuba420]

Not directly related, but more stooopid companies burning $$$ on usless research......

Airbus is building an aircraft hydrogen fuel cell powertrain
It's in contrast to Rolls-Royce testing hydrogen burning jet engines.
https://www.autoblog.com/2022/12/04/...e-development/

As part of its goal to have zero-emission aircraft enter service by 2035, Airbus has announced the development of a hydrogen fuel cell designed for airplanes. Unlike Rolls-Royce's recently announced jet engine that burns hydrogen directly, it would use an electric motor just like fuel-cell cars, while emitting only H2O. It could eventually be employed in commercial aircraft that could carry up to 100 passengers around 1,000 nautical miles (1,150 miles), the company said.

Airbus plans to test the engine by the middle of the decade on its A380 MSN1 aircraft, "currently being modified to carry liquid hydrogen tanks." However, the technology appears to be designed for smaller, regional aircraft that use more efficient propeller, rather than jet, engines. As you can see on the rendering above, the fuel cell and propeller motor are attached to an A380 for testing, not necessarily as full propulsion for the large airliner.

"Fuel cells are a potential solution to help us achieve our zero-emission ambition, and we are focused on developing and testing this technology to understand if it is feasible and viable for a 2035 entry-into-service of a zero-emission aircraft," said Airbus VP for zero-emission aircraft, Glenn Llewellyn.

The company didn't provide any more details, but fuel cells are a well-known technology for cars. They're far less efficient than battery electric vehicles (BEVs) if you count fuel production and conversion to electricity. However, they have more range, are faster to refuel and lighter — with the latter, of course, being essential for aircraft.

[b4wantab]

The Aviation industry has no choice but to stay with liquid fuel.

The last few sentences say it all.

The alternative liquids are where we need to be long-term.

Peace,

Greg

[SCRAPPYDO]

It is funny watching people trash hydrogen anything as it 'threatens' the EV cult they currently worship.

BEV are not utopia. They are many shortcomings and downsides. Just like ICE and just like any Hydrogen. All solutions must be at least investigated.

The thing is when governments impose stupid draconian carbon limits and unrealistic goals like net zero what you end up with is stupid and unrealistic things being tried as there is money on the table to try them. Not shocking or even remotely surprising.

As an exercise in engineering, the plane will be interesting. Would I want to fly in it, hell no.

[SCRAPPYDO]

It is funny watching people trash hydrogen anything as it 'threatens' the EV cult they currently worship.

BEV are not utopia. They are many shortcomings and downsides. Just like ICE and just like any Hydrogen. All solutions must be at least investigated.

The thing is when governments impose stupid draconian carbon limits and unrealistic goals like net zero what you end up with is stupid and unrealistic things being tried as there is money on the table to try them. Not shocking or even remotely surprising.

As an exercise in engineering, the plane will be interesting. Would I want to fly in it, hell no.

[dwf137]

Originally Posted by SCRAPPYDO

It is funny watching people trash hydrogen anything as it 'threatens' the EV cult they currently worship.

BEV are not utopia. They are many shortcomings and downsides. Just like ICE and just like any Hydrogen. All solutions must be at least investigated.

The thing is when governments impose stupid draconian carbon limits and unrealistic goals like net zero what you end up with is stupid and unrealistic things being tried as there is money on the table to try them. Not shocking or even remotely surprising.

As an exercise in engineering, the plane will be interesting. Would I want to fly in it, hell no.

Contradictory much?

If a private company wants to invest money in creating a zero emission airplane, you're going to bash them? Why? Because it threatens oil? Are you really financially invested in oil or something? You bash an "ev cult" but it sounds like you're part of an "oil cult"... They're backed by a private investment fund and are seeking to meet an internal goal of creating a zero emission plane by 2035. Just because it doesn't fit your goals, doesn't mean private companies shouldn't be able to pursue their own goals.

I would fly on this. And hydrogen seems much more viable for planes than any other zero emission solution. Batteries are pretty much a non-starter. And infrastructure will be easier to implement as it's just discrete locations, not needed everywhere like hydrogen for vehicles, they always have fixed paths/destinations.

[SCRAPPYDO]

nope, no investment in oil. None. I was simply pointing out how narrow minded people are about energy production. All options should be on the table. Do I think Hydrogen is globally viable? It has many drawbacks, but those are merely engineering challenges. Are those challenges worth the price to overcome? Not sure. Same with EV. Are the challenges of those financially viable to overcome? Well as with most things it depends.

Warmers believe in the cult of climate change, which is bogus. They have been lured into thinking we are in the midst of a crisis, which we are certainly NOT. Crisis do not usually last 40 years. Hard to keep that level of fear going without the constant thrumming of the 'we are doomed' drum.

Hydrogen is not a great solution to the 'problem' of carbon pollution if you buy into that kind of thing. But it is 'a' solution. We can debate who comes up with the dumbest solution, but all have warts and none are perfect.

I have absolutely no issues with trying all kinds of new forms of energy including tidal, as long as nuclear is in the mix.

You have me pegged all wrong. While I do not think anything associated with man made climate change is worth listening to, I do think that reducing pollution in general is a really good thing. If that is a problem so be it.

[dwf137]

Originally Posted by SCRAPPYDO

You have me pegged all wrong. While I do not think anything associated with man made climate change is worth listening to, I do think that reducing pollution in general is a really good thing. If that is a problem so be it.

I definitely don't have you pegged "all wrong"... I know you belong to the climate change denier cult, that you've made abundantly clear. You're also being duplicitous. On one hand you pretend to support solutions other than fossil fuels but then continue to denigrate any of those other solutions as a waste of tax payer money... but it's cool, let's just keep feeding billionaires more tax payer dollars in an already profitable industry...

[godfather2112]

Let's try to keep this civil and not circle the politics drain if we can.

[dwf137]

I'll play nicer. Just frustrated.

I still don't understand hydrogen for cars because there are better solutions, but think it could be a good solution for aviation since the options are much more limited.