Honda touts new energy efficient "heat-harnessing hybrid"

Honda's already made more than a few attempts at energy efficient vehicles, but it looks like the company is far from running out of options, with it now touting a new so-called "heat harnessing hybrid" that it says can recapture more lost energy than conventional hybrids during highway driving. The key to that is a so-called Rankine cycle engine, which captures waste heat from the car's exhaust and puts it back to work to heat water, which gets converted to steam to power an electric generator, which in turn charges the car's battery pack. That basic idea, as you may have deduced, is hardly a new one, but Honda appears to have pushed things farther along than most, with its current prototype (a Honda Stream) boasting a 3.8% increase in efficiency when motoring along at 62 miles per hour, among other advantages. That's apparently not quite enough to convince Honda to put the technology to use in production vehicles, however, although it says that situation could change if they're able to boost the efficiency even further.

[Via Digg, image courtesy of EcoGeek]

[ReggieXuk @ Feb 19th 2008 7:41PM]

Hybrids are a load of rubbish, 100% electric cars, with solar panel roofs should be out by now.

It so obvious the technology for decent batteries is being held back.

[phanbouy @ Feb 19th 2008 7:42PM]

Reggie FTW. Electric power trains are 2x more efficient than internal combustion engines.

[Sauerkraut @ Feb 19th 2008 7:43PM]

I gotta agree

[celeritas @ Feb 19th 2008 9:11PM]

I agree that all-electric cars are better than hybrids but I don't agree that battery technology is being held back. I think people underestimate how much energy it takes to propel over 3500lbs of mass. We're seeing the disadvantages of using fossil fuels but there are reasons why we've been using them to power our civilization for over a century. High energy density is one of them. Batteries are very inefficient by comparison but I'm sure there are people working on it> We just don't hear about every day.

[deedeedee @ Feb 19th 2008 10:41PM]

Agree!

But of course we'd have better battery technology or better and more powerful alternative engine by now. But its all politics; if everyone's driving 100% electric now, who's gonna feed the people in countries that's dependent on fossil fuel export? And thats the "to-put-it-nicely-and-humane" question that can reasonably prevent better technology at this moment.

The "f*ed-up-ugly-reality" question is: who's gonna feed the rich greedy bastards that make money from fossil fuel if we have 100% electric cars? So yea...none of that fancy battery car of yours :D

[emjoi @ Feb 19th 2008 10:49PM]

Of course you have to charge to Electric Car.
Using your coal or oil or nuclear power station.

[Wonderkid @ Feb 19th 2008 7:42PM]

Sorry, these tiny 'improvements' (3.8%!!!) in the design of cars and other machines are a joke in relation to the changes we are going to need to adopt to make a real difference. Even the most eco aware and caring industries (except the makers of solar panels) tend to introduce these pointless modifications simply to make a statement - it's good PR.

Even if every auto manufacturer on the planet was to convert to Hybrid high efficiency technology overnight, it is too late. Remember just how much energy is being consumed to make our machines.

Just as society as a whole needs a radical 're-boot', so heavy industry needs to change radically. Else we're toast, or if we trigger an ice age, bread.

The key is near-organic technology that far closer emulates nature.

[Mark @ Feb 19th 2008 8:13PM]

Global cooling is so 1970's, get with the program: the popular phenomenon is now global warming.

[Tech Guy @ Feb 19th 2008 9:25PM]

Dude, We all have to start somewhere. Even if its a 3.8% increase, its better than no increase at all. I applaud them at least trying to make improvements in efficiency.

[Reader @ Feb 19th 2008 10:42PM]

"Dude, We all have to start somewhere. Even if its a 3.8% increase, its better than no increase at all. I applaud them at least trying to make improvements in efficiency."

In reality it's more of a marketing ploy than anything else. They can now say in their commercials that they're the only car company with 'Thermal Dynamic Recapturerers' that improve efficiency or whatever catch phrase they choose.

[Jon Doe. @ Feb 19th 2008 11:20PM]

Mark Global Warming CAUSES Global Cooling. Not in the time frame that you saw in alarmist tripe like Day After Tomorrow, but it does happen. Its all about the oceans. That is what is going to fuck us long term.

[Student Driver @ Feb 20th 2008 12:39AM]

Some of the responses are a bit harsh for no real reason. Honda has done quite a bit of research in hydrogen extraction, handling, and usage; this is just another engineering exercise to see if there's something worth re-capturing. Many times, just mapping something out on paper and punching in the numbers just isn't as good as actually building and developing the model. I can't even point out how many times we've tested and deployed systems only to find differences in the reality of the system that taught us a lot. Marketing exercise? Hardly.

All-electric would be great, but if you wanted to produce a product (especially one so dependent on volume to reduce cost) you would want to make sure that as many locations as possible can support it. I bet there's quite a bit of concern with loading up the power grids all over the place with thousands of these things at this time. But, with gas engines and regenerative braking providing the juice, they can get some real mileage under the batteries, motors, controllers, and other subsystems that would be shared with all-electric brethren. Now, is that all bad?

[EQB @ Feb 19th 2008 7:43PM]

Now if Honda would just change the styling a little bit we could have our very own steam-punk car! Steam forever!

[ethana2 @ Feb 19th 2008 10:08PM]

The key to an efficient vehicle is efficient software. Cars should use open road maps that include speed limit and road slope/height tagging to control acceleration and such. They should use GPS to learn streets and send all the data online.

...It may be an interesting twist to take advantage of passengers legs for power generation... Plugging in is essential.. a small flex fuel engine is great.. capturing waste heat from system components is good. Streamlining. You have to streamline the airflow. Sure, people mock ugly cars, but you know what? If it does what it's supposed to do and does it well, I don't care how it looks.

[Hammond X @ Feb 19th 2008 10:39PM]

If you thought getting your girlfriend to check the water in your car was tough now, wait 'till you get one of these. You'll be on a first name basis with the people at the parts store.

[Hammond X @ Feb 19th 2008 10:40PM]

If you thought getting your girlfriend to check the water in your car was tough now, wait 'till you get one of these. You'll be on a first name basis with the people at the parts store.

[Hammond X @ Feb 19th 2008 10:47PM]

So do I leave it at 2 posts and look like an idiot, or try to explain it wasn't my fault and go for 3? I think I'll just leave it at 2....D'OH!!

[Jkswiss @ Feb 19th 2008 7:43PM]

Ah, then you'd have to change your water every 3k miles also. Also, you would have to worry about hard scaling, pH, and freezing.

[ReggieXuk @ Feb 19th 2008 7:52PM]

I hope people didn't mis-read my post. I'm against hybrid, and for electric.

[Drew @ Feb 19th 2008 8:09PM]

No thank you, The reason to buy a Honda is for reliability and good value, Please do not start adding extra moving internal contraptions that can konk out, leaving me with a $$$ repair bill. I still have a car with manual windows!

I am all for saving energy, but you can save the same amount by changing driving habits.
-Don't do jack rabbit starts.
-Don't accelerate if you see that the next light is/will turn red, soon.
-If you drive manual, shift to neutral & use momentum to coast to the red light, or to the right/left turn you intend to make
(-don't accelerate down hills when there is no one behind you.
-You car warms up in the winter much faster if you drive than just letting it idle.
-proper tire pressure & maintenance.
-The traffic lights are timed, drive the limit and you will hit green lights without having to stop/start, saving initial energy to move off again.

Having said all that, I can't wait to get my hands on an old muscle car that runs on a carburetor... I just love the sound of a gas guzzling car in idle... Chevy Nova, 72 Roadrunner, Buick GN... just to look at and wash 5 times a week...

[phanbouy @ Feb 19th 2008 8:15PM]

aww yeah, it's all about the Hyper Miling!

[Killer @ Feb 19th 2008 8:32PM]

Thank you!!! Someone with driving sense. I was almost going to give up on people, when they keep wondering why their 30+ mph rated car is getting around 22, because of their driving habits. +++ and a round of applause for that!

[Dan @ Feb 19th 2008 8:57PM]

Actually you shouldn't coast in neutral if you are wanting to save gas. A modern (most 1995+) fuel-injected car will use NO FUEL if your foot is off the accelerator, you are in gear, and the car is moving (ie, engine braking). This is a feature known as Deceleration Fuel Cut-Off. However, if you are in neutral, fuel must be supplied to keep the engine idling.

[Josh @ Feb 19th 2008 9:06PM]

As soon as people can make sporty cars that are affordable (

[Reid @ Feb 19th 2008 9:34PM]

Good points.

I will add to this:

* Don't slow down for speed bumps, if possible (not possible in my car)
* Slow down as little as possible for corners
* Don't come to a complete stop at stop signs
* Don't stop before making a right turn on red
* When at highway speeds and not expecting to have to brake, tailgate (drafting).

Only some of these are tongue in cheek :) Many things that the state tells us are for "safety" are bad for the environment.

[paul34 @ Feb 19th 2008 10:43PM]

Agreed with Dan. You want to take advantage of DFCO whenever possible. There's no need to downshift - just take your foot off the throttle and use passive engine braking as much as possible up to a red light.

The impatient and dumb slushies behind you may get pretty close to your bumper, not understanding why you're not waiting until 100 feet before the intersection than slamming on your brakes - but so be it. Don't care about them. You're saving fuel, being far more efficient in general, and saving brakes as well - concepts they could never understand. They're probably driving some SUV anyway.

[Jon Doe. @ Feb 19th 2008 11:32PM]

-Don't do jack rabbit starts.

Depends on the car. That may be true for traditional combustion engines but my prius does better at jackrabbit starts. The sooner I get up to 30MPH and ease off the accelerator the sooner the electric can kick in and turn off the ICE.


-The traffic lights are timed, drive the limit and you will hit green lights without having to stop/start, saving initial energy to move off again.


False. A good % of lights now a days are NOT timed. They are sensored. So if there is no car at that light it will sit there red forever. Now there are different combinations to this. Where in busy traffic periods yes they are set to auto change in x time to allow easier flow of traffic but general rule of thumb, the sooner you get to the light the sooner it will change.
Also most lights in America, or at the very least in MN, are horribly calibrated. I can easily hit every red light in a 10 block radius in Minneapolis. So this bunk that they are timed to allow you to pass through a bunch of greens all at the same time is a bunch of bull in many cases. Not all, just many. I drive for my job. I put on anywhere from 80 - 120 miles per day, this isn't speculation. Its fact AFAIC.

[J242 @ Feb 20th 2008 12:39AM]

Right on! Finally someone who understands that driving habits play a crucial factor in the efficiency of a vehicle! My insurance covers road-side assistance and living in a major metropolitan area, I have yet to find a place where I don't get solid cell coverage so the spare tire and all the equipment like the jock and whatnot? Gone, lightened my car by 20 some odd pounds. I don't carry anything in the car usually aside from a small kit w/ a flashlight, band-aids, antiseptic, gloves, flares and a reflective hazard sign. I saw my mileage raise a few miles as soon as I did this and took the extra weight out of the equation. Secondly, going down hills in neutral, "coasting" whenever possible, not doing stop-go driving but idling slowly but more constantly, choosing hours of travel with less traffic so less stop and go, etc... They have my Saturn Ion getting an average of 30 mpg city and 35 highway now all because of good driving habits and ditching the extra weight.

[Student Driver @ Feb 20th 2008 12:50AM]

@Dan

One slight problem with that is many cars still use gas, but they shoot up to 25:1 vs. the normal 15:1 in many vehicles. If you let off the throttle at 3K RPM (at 25:1) vs. idling at 750 RPM (at 15:1, possibly leaner depending on the temp), which would use more fuel?

Now, I prefer to leave it in gear for a different reason: control. Having the car in neutral is a bad idea if you need to avoid something quickly. Also, I tend to use engine braking as I live in a hilly area. Of course, for cars that rely on cylinder deactivation, they may actually go to zero gas and not ignite anything while at zero throttle and higher speeds so you get a win-win there.

As for me, I just got a Honda Fit to replace my WRX as I needed an automatic transmission (bad knees) and wanted to hold my mountain and cyclocross bikes inside the car, rather than on the roof. So, I just leave it in gear for the most part, but I use the gimmicky paddle shifters for engine braking down steeper descents.

[Ron Smith @ Feb 19th 2008 8:10PM]

Why isn't carbon fiber being taken more seriously? The number one hamper to fuel-efficiency is weight, and carbon fiber significantly reduces it. Airline manufacturers have used it for a decade now, and the best high performance cars use it so what is holding the auto-industry back?

[phanbouy @ Feb 19th 2008 8:20PM]

have you seen the price of C-fiber bicycles? i shudder to think of the prices on cars

[ingus @ Feb 19th 2008 9:16PM]

cost

[Jon @ Feb 19th 2008 8:39PM]

Carbon fibre's expensive to manufacture, difficult to repair and difficult to recycle. It's great for places where money's no object or its great strength-to-weight ratio makes it a must-have, but I think it'll be a while before mass-market budget automobiles are made out of it.

Having said that, necessity is the mother of invention. The car manufacturers could probably find solutions to those problems if they had to... but there's no point while they can still sell us sheet steel car bodies. Same as how (I believe) a lot of the low-emissions work only came about because of changes in legislation.

[celeritas @ Feb 19th 2008 8:43PM]

Carbon fiber is taken very seriously especially in motorsports but it is very expensive. It is trickling down to more affordable cars though. The M3, and corvette ZR1 has some carbon fiber body panels but those cars still cost over $60k. And comparing commercial aircraft to cars is like apples and oranges. I read somewhere that a Boeing 787, which uses a lot of carbon composite, costs $151 million each. Not exactly price competitive with your average Honda.

[Killer @ Feb 19th 2008 8:51PM]

Ummm...Because Carbon Fiber is expensive (like phanbouy said) and not to mention just creates more CO2. CO2 is released when carbon fiber is produced, so all it would do is fix fuel economy not CO2 emissions(which I care the least about). I would love the fuel economy of it though, but the price of it wouldn't justify the other end.

Besides:
http://www.asminternational.org/MSTemplate.cfm?Section=News_Releases2&Site=SMST&template=/PressRelease/PressReleaseDisplay.cfm&PressReleaseID=1238&News=1
Carbon fiber has a new competitor...

[Jon @ Feb 19th 2008 8:15PM]

This is rather ambiguous... at first glace it looks like it's talking about improving efficiency by 3.8% of what it was - which might translate into a barely worthwhile 3.8% improvement in fuel consumption.

But I think it actually means that it improves the engine efficiency (i.e. useful work out as a percentage of energy in from fuel) from whatever it was before to something that's 3.8 higher. As an internal combustion engine typically runs as low as 20% efficiency (theoretically peaking around 35% if everything's perfect) this is actually a MASSIVE improvement of almost 20% (minimum - 10%) over the existing efficiency. So, in theory, this could be a 10-20% improvement in fuel efficiency.

...if I'm reading this right.

[Jon @ Feb 19th 2008 8:17PM]

HYDROGEN FTW

Or at least anything other than petrol, electric works too but the big Automakers (Ford, GM) are lobbying really heavily against it, and you lose major points in performance, which takes away from it being a viable alternative to gasoline.

Look at what BMW is doing with Hydrogen internal combustion engines... really interesting stuff. It's only a matter of time before they can make those engines powerful enough to replace gasoline.

[phanbouy @ Feb 19th 2008 8:19PM]

don't forget though that hydrogen cars like Honda's FCV is basically a hydrogen-powered electric. Hydrogen doesn't make electric cars more powerful, it only provides a better fuel alternative to Li-ion batteries.

[Jon @ Feb 19th 2008 8:17PM]

HYDROGEN FTW

Or at least anything other than petrol, electric works too but the big Automakers (Ford, GM) are lobbying really heavily against it, and you lose major points in performance, which takes away from it being a viable alternative to gasoline.

Look at what BMW is doing with Hydrogen internal combustion engines... really interesting stuff. It's only a matter of time before they can make those engines powerful enough to replace gasoline.

[tbirdman @ Feb 19th 2008 8:28PM]

i know a couple years ago ford converted regular vans to run on hydrogen at an airport, i haven't heard much about it since. basically all they did was strengthen the block and add a hydrogen furl cell and all the necessary plumbing and pumps. pretty cool though.

[The Warden @ Feb 19th 2008 9:21PM]

People need to remember that Honda is first and foremost an Engineering company focusing entirely on ENGINES. Honda is the LARGEST engine manufacturer in the world. They just end up building products around their engines. This is just another piece of evidence as to why they are the largest and most successful engine company in the world. They innovate and this new technology might or might not work but Honda is on the right path.

[patsy @ Feb 19th 2008 9:37PM]

Perhaps, but Honda also never met a technology hype bandwagon it didn't like jumping on. Witness their most recent debacle with the Accord Hybrid (or was it the Civic, or both?) that turned out to have only marginally better fuel economy than the regular model and was recently discontinued. For a new technology to become successful it has to provide clear and tangible benefits, not just some wishy-washy feel-good emotions. For example, at the moment a good modern Diesel kicks hybrid ass all day long in most respects and is cheaper to boot.

[The Warden @ Feb 19th 2008 9:44PM]

Patsy,

Honda's problem with the Accord Hybrid wasn't one of an engineering problem but of a marketing problem. Honda's goal with the Accordy Hybrid was to prove that a powerful hybrid can be achieved. Unfortunately, Honda didn't accurately explain that and many people thought they'd get great mileage. Fact was the Hybrid Accord got just a tad better mileage yet was ` 5K more expenisve than a regualr V6. Those that bought the Hybrid were the greenies that just thought they'd get prius like mileage and were very upset when they actually realized they didn't. So, you can't say the car was a failur due to engineering..it was a failure because Honda's marketing was completely crappy with the vehicle.

[patsy @ Feb 19th 2008 10:23PM]

Yes, but doesn't it all come down to marketing in the end anyway? The Accord Hybrid was what most other manufacturers would call a "technology demonstrator" more than anything else. The only thing remarkable about it was that it was only $5K more with current technology. Look at Mercedes for a counter-example. They've doggedly worked on a fuel cell car for well over a decade now and gone through several generations of stepwise improvements, but are still not ready to call it market-ready. I'm not going so far as to call them more visionary than the Japanese manufacturers, but definitely more grounded marketing pragmatists. I consider the Japanese more likely to hit the market with half-baked technology. The only cloud in this picture is that MB will probably also rush a hybrid to market just to keep with the trend, even though I simply don't consider the current parallel hybrids worth the effort. Once they manage to squeeze a proper diesel series hybrid such as seen in locomotives, ships or mining trucks--or, perhaps ever better, a compact gas turbine--into a car, then we're talking. Do away with the transmission and use true hub motors for AWD; after all, that's been the promise of electric cars for, like, forever. Current stuff is simply too afraid to let go of the past to really make an impact.

[Stephen Chen @ Feb 19th 2008 9:29PM]

this is old. BMW patented this technology, look up BMW turbo steamer. at least in BMW's case they're trying to make this an application you can apply to current and past BMW models not just future ones.

[boe @ Feb 19th 2008 11:14PM]

I'm all for more fuel efficient cars but I'm not impressed with Honda's track record. They build a gas guzzling hybrid accord muscle car. If they had reduced the HP by about 20% on that model and increased fuel efficiency by about 20% they probably would have had a winner. Instead of thinking they made a mistake by making a gas guzzling hybrid muscle car, they conclude Americans weren't in the market for hybrid mid sized cars.

[bob @ Feb 20th 2008 3:23AM]

Yada yada yada.

Kill the SUVs. (Actually, Ive noticed that Honda Accord gas milages are going down, based on models from '90 to today. I think its just to make the SUV market bigger. Conspiracy?)

Remember kids, when its just 1 of you commuting, you don't need something the size, shape, and look as the short bus.
And carpooling helps too. (Plus, you can hang with your mates!)

But still, at least they're /trying/.

[Tod @ Feb 20th 2008 11:27AM]

Actually..make more SUVs..but make them with Hydraulic Hybrid power. I would love to be driving an Explorer or Expedition with 7000 pounds of Hydraulic Thrust, getting the same MPG as a Ugly frickin Prius, and without the extra battery waste.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/02/60_mpg_ford_f15.php

This kind of tech could be used in smaller vehicles too, but right now the tanks are bulky.

Not all of us want to drive a small ugly car.

[bob @ Feb 20th 2008 11:52AM]

Small cars don't have to be ugly, but I will agree that your tech would be more efficient for SUVs, and that Prius's are ugly.

But still. Me commuting to work daily (city)...SUV or 2 door?

[suphawk @ Feb 20th 2008 9:12AM]

Jack rabbit my ass! If I'm paying for my gas and maintenance I'll drive however I want!

Mean while you tree huggers who want to save an ounce of gas get the frack out of the left lane already!!!