Honda FCX Clarity set to enter limited production and sale

If you're in the market for a fuel efficient car, but you've been holding out for something a little more advanced than the Prius -- your dreams may have just been answered. Honda announced today that it would begin producing limited quantities of its FCX Clarity hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles for sale in the US and Japan over the next few years. According to the automaker, it plans to offer around 200 of the zero-emission cars in the next three years, with a few dozen models expected on the road this year leased at around $600 a month. Said John Mendel, a senior vice president at Honda, "It's an especially significant day for American Honda as we plant firm footsteps toward the mainstreaming of fuel cell cars." Now all they have to do is get more than 3 fueling stations out there and we'll be all set.

Read - Honda rolls out fuel cell car
Read - Honda starts producing next-generation fuel cell car

[SteveJ @ Jun 16th 2008 11:06AM]

For $600 a month, it better save on more than just fuel.

[John @ Jun 16th 2008 11:19AM]

The only problem I have with cars based on hydrogen fuel is that all of them are basically lease only. None of them list an actual price, leading me to believe that these cars are nothing more than expensive rentals.

The car looks nice, though. I don't think it's ugly at all.

[L:I:A:F @ Jun 16th 2008 11:38AM]

I remeber reading a few months back in Car and Driver that the $600 price tag will include full coverage insurance, provided by Honda.

Honda will be taking a loss on every single car but they are attempting to help our oil addiction...

[Nick M. @ Jun 16th 2008 12:25PM]

attempting to replace our oil addiction to hydrogen addiction... whether its oil or hydrogen... we are still going to be getting bent over by BP, Exon Mobil, and Shell.

[makishima @ Jun 16th 2008 12:28PM]

L:I:A:F is correct. The $600 includes quite a bit like all matinince on the vehicle, insurance, etc. Its more a rental fee to participate in a full scale road test experiment on the new cars.

[Temple @ Jun 16th 2008 12:54PM]

The point of this car isn't to save money. Honda is using this as a test-bed for future hydrogen cars and alternative energy. Honda actually was leasing the hydrogen FCX before the Clarity, now they are offering more cars to more people. But its an experiment, and you'll have a team of engineers looking after your car for you, and you get to be a part of it.

If you want cheap, Honda already has the Fit which gets EPA rating: (2008) 33/38 miles per gallon and starts around $14k.

[Echo1 @ Jun 16th 2008 3:54PM]

As for me, I'll stick with trying to find a Honda Insight, although I like the design of the FCX

[SimbaDogg @ Jun 17th 2008 5:16PM]

@ Nick M
if you think oil companies are going to be the ones supplying hydrogen of the future, you're an idiot. Yes it does take electricity to remove hydrogen from water (electrolysis) but there have already been designs for solar powered electrolysis stations which would take water, extract the H w/out using any "grid" power...just the sun.
http://www.ecofriend.org/entry/solar-powered-hydrogen-fuel-station-opens-woodland/
though these do cost quite a bit of money, the prospect of "limitless free power" is something everyone should be interested in the future. especially the concepts that honda is working on to put this same tech in conjunction w/ a fuel cell in your home to 1) power your home 2) produce the hydrogen needed to power your car.

"the power of dreams"...thats lookin forward to the future if you ask me

[stefan @ Jun 16th 2008 11:09AM]

And the hydrogen comes from....

[Zal @ Jun 16th 2008 11:10AM]

Oil and coal, of course!

[Snitch @ Jun 16th 2008 11:19AM]

The new High-temperature gas cooled reactors produce tons of hydrogen, is just that governments like dicking

[JSM @ Jun 16th 2008 11:36AM]

for now, natural gas retification mostly, at the filling station, though if the demand rose it would start to come from direct h2o conversion - an inefficient process, but able to make use of otherwise unusable non-carbon energy -- excess heat from nuclear plants, and utility energy oversupply (one of the nice side benefits of wind.) Though, of course, even the nat gas is far cleaner than just burning the oil as the gas is delivered to the station by pipeline rather than truck, and the actual energy efficiency of the honda cells is quite high.

Of course, you knew all that and we're just making your, "oil and coal" point with your fellow chucklehead in order to justify being defiant little kids in opposition to everyone telling you to be good and conserve. Fight the Power kid... erm.. ok, maybe not the "power" ... how about you just go away.

[Artie Lange @ Jun 16th 2008 11:40AM]

Why do people (Contrarians? Pessimists?) who should know (and probably DO know) better continue to propagate the myth that the only source of hydrogen (or electricity for that matter) is burning fossil fuels? First, hydrogen can be produced by nuclear, solar, and wind power. Second, even if the only method to produce hydrogen was by burning fossil fuels, it is far easier to monitor, regulate, and clean emissions from a few power plants than it is from millions of individual internal combustion engines.

Stop the lies, or educate yourself to the realities.

[stefan @ Jun 16th 2008 11:57AM]

Thing is that we have neither the production capacities nor the distribution network for hydrogen as of now. So if this idea really catches on (and the geek inside me hopes it does) I'm afraid that not the cleanest way to produce hydrogen will be widely deployed - but the quickest and cheapest one.

OTOH the guys at Honda probably thought allof this through and I'm looking forward to the rollout of this car.

What I'm trying to say is that the novell thing (and biggest challenge) about this car won't be it's engine but it's entire ecosystem.

[majortom @ Jun 16th 2008 11:09AM]

there lies the problem with new technology. No infrastructure to support it. But, over time, hopefully small companies will start offering hydrogen along side fossil fuels and the reality of a truly clean car will develop.

[Greg @ Jun 16th 2008 11:09AM]

Does it drive its self like on Minority Report?

[natels @ Jun 16th 2008 11:10AM]

More advanced than the hyrbid but similar ugly design.

[natels @ Jun 16th 2008 11:11AM]

Prius rather..

[darkstar @ Jun 16th 2008 11:39AM]

yep. the thing is still ugly!

[david @ Jun 16th 2008 12:01PM]

I don't think it looks bad. A whole lot better than the Prius or the Insight. I'd lease one if I had the cash, just to say I had a hydrogen car.

[matt @ Jun 16th 2008 11:15AM]

it's a small step forward, but it's a step nonetheless.
I don't know if I'd pay $600/mo for one when I could always get an old VW Rabbit diesel pickup that gets 60-70mpg, but that Rabbit wouldn't quite be as clean for the atmosphere as the Clarity, either.

[Josh L @ Jun 16th 2008 11:15AM]

So, let me get this straight:

Looks stupid.
Horribly overpriced.
No place to get fuel for it.
No efficient way to manufacture the fuel for it.
(How much does it cost to fill up a Hydrogen car, anyway?)

Gotta love cumbersome solutions to imaginary problems.

[jared @ Jun 16th 2008 11:21AM]

I would definitely agree that this is a cumbersome solution, but I don't really think that pollution or oil prices are imaginary problems.

[gb @ Jun 16th 2008 11:23AM]

8 years ago, gas was $1.50 a gallon. Today it is $4.00. This is not an "imaginary problem".

[Thi mam(kris120890) @ Jun 16th 2008 11:35AM]

Yes but think about it. Most poeple hava a car. Most carbon comes from cars and power stations. Now take a car that doesn't produce carbon it self and only produces water. Although you have to create hydrogen using pollutants is still far less carbon than ownin a normal car producing carbon machine. so it migh be seen as one hydrgen car with the same production of multiples of carbon producing cars.

Someone correct me.

[Josh L @ Jun 16th 2008 11:29AM]

@ you two:

So you didn't answer my question. How much does it cost to fill up a hydrogen car?

It doesn't matter if gas goes up to $400 / gal. If hydrogen costs more, then this is indeed an idiotic solution, and a waste of money and time that would be better spent developing more efficient hybrid / electric / ICE cars.

Also: an increase in atmospheric CO2 promotes plant growth. Why are you in favor of deforestation? Why do you hate the rain forests?

[Backlin @ Jun 16th 2008 11:29AM]

What are you people talking about? The problem of high gas prices is as imaginary as war, or poverty.

[Kris @ Jun 16th 2008 11:29AM]

@gb, $1.50 a gallon 8 years ago? Where do you live, California?

I started driving 7 years ago and regularlly paid $.99 a gallon for quite some time.

[Kris @ Jun 16th 2008 11:32AM]

@Josh L, what you don't understand is supply and demand. Hydrogen cars, when first released, will of course be more expensive than other energies because it's new, it's not in demand and there is little supply.

This will _always_ be the case with alternative fuels. Once one becomes main stream and is integrated into your typical gas station then you'll really start seeing saving then but you're not going to see a solution overnight.

With your attitude we'll be stuck on oil forever until it really is $400 a gallon.

[phanbouy @ Jun 16th 2008 1:15PM]

Haha..I wonder where Josh gets his talking points from. I somehow doubt even he's stupid enough to say "why do you hate rainforests?" and actually mean it.

I've heard of denying climate change, but implying that million year old forests will go extinct if we don't drive more and burn more fossil fuels (which..uh... you know, are finite) really takes the cake as science ignorance 101

[Nilgiri @ Jun 16th 2008 3:02PM]

In support of phanbouy's comment, this "CO2 is good for plants" argument is one of the most devious/ignorant of the arguments out there because every school kid knows that CO2 is good for plants. This however, is a microscopic view of a macroscopic problem (not unlike the "it's cold in someplace-or-other today" argument).

Global warming is nearly as much a threat to plant life as it is to people: warmer air holds more water which results in more drought and more flooding, both of which are detrimental to plants and people. He's a related tip: water vapor is a much more potent and significant green house gas than CO2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_house_gas), so as the air warms and soaks up more water, it soaks up more heat, and so more water... This is one of the major contributors to the "tipping point" I hope you are all getting sick of hearing about. Get sick of it, but know what it means and make others sick of hearing you say it.

This car is not the whole solution, no more than any other bit of technology, but it can be a major part of the solution be being a leader and an enabler. More importantly, if you drive this car now, then driving your car is no longer part of the problem. Where you get your fuel may be an issue, how the car is disposed of or manufactured might come in to play, but just driving the car does no harm.

For the "economists" in the group, all the arguments I see posted here break down in 2010 when we hit $10/gal. No amount of drilling for more oil is going to stop this. Giant and easily accessible finds might push this out a year or two, but the only people that want to drill in ANWR stand to profit at the detriment of consumers or they just don't understand the logistics of the situation: not enough oil there to make it worth while; see "An Inconvenient Truth" for enough of a taste to set you straight here, or "Home Energy Diet" for some more detail.

[Shawin @ Jun 16th 2008 11:21AM]

It's fat and ugly.
Each year, the cars just get fatter like you've blown them up!
I'll think about saving the earth's atmosphere only if the car looks good.

[Backlin @ Jun 16th 2008 11:31AM]

All you have to do is look at the people driving the cars. Then you'll see the correlation.

[Vidit Bhargava @ Jun 16th 2008 11:22AM]

wow...have been looking forward to these for sometime...sad these will only be available in california for now...

FYI...honda is setting up stations to refuel the fuel cells...it will be clean for the environment and will be cheap they simply use hydrogen and oxygen to work

[Sasha S. @ Jun 16th 2008 11:25AM]

First a big round of APPLAUSE for Honda! WELL DONE!!!

Second, I suggest to US engadget readers to DEMAND hydrogen fuel-stations that are powered by carbon-less source (wind, solar) from their policy-makers (local, state and federal)

Third, we all should write Honda and DEMAND 200 million of such cars.

This is a great first step - Honda have proven that such car can be made - not a concept - actual working rolling car normal people can drive in real world.

It is on us to show that there is demand and to tell our politicians what we want them to do (fueling stations, subsidies, free parking for zero emission cars, opening priority lanes, etc etc)

Last but not the least - lets boo the companies that are still bullshitting us and showing us concepts and prototypes: starting with Germans: Audi, Daimler, Porsche, VW, Opel, etc, Swedes: Volvo and Saab continuing with US ones: GM, Ford, Chrysler (what's left of it), and the rest of the lemmings.

[Kris @ Jun 16th 2008 11:34AM]

You're dumb

[Josh L @ Jun 16th 2008 11:37AM]

Explain to me how a $600 / month (on a LEASE), limited-availability vehicle with no place to fuel up is any better than a prototype or concept car?

If you can afford $600 per month for this lease, you can afford to buy and buy gas for a fuel-efficient compact car instead (with a few hundos left over). Meaning the only people that will be able to afford this car are the people who aren't really hurting for gas, and will only buy this for the same reason those same people buy Priuses (Prii?): to look down their noses at all the plebs who aren't "doing their part for the planet".

Call me back when Honda is selling these at half the price to lower- and middle-class commuters. Oh, and when there are more than 15 hydrogen fueling stations on the planet.

[alexmueller @ Jun 16th 2008 11:57AM]

Okay Josh you can shut up now. First of all it is in a testing phase so they are working out the kinks, which is why it is not widely available. Secondly it is only available where there is a hydrogen gas station like So Cal, for instance in Torrance, Santa Monica and Irvine. You can't get one of these in Idaho obviously when there isn't anywhere to fill it up. Lastly the 600 dollars includes maintenance and repairs and insurance which quite frankly is a steal. Because not only are you saving money on gas, you also don't have to pay for insurance or pay for repairs. I'd like you to find a better value on leasing a car that includes all of that for cheaper.

[Josh L @ Jun 16th 2008 12:06PM]

@alex:

I pay a total of ~$400 /mo for my car payment and insurance. That also includes maintainence and repair with my warranty.

So that's around $200 that I have to buy gas (which I can buy no matter where I live). I spend about $35 on gas every two weeks or so. So I've ended up with $130 extra dollars per month that I can do anything I like with. Sounds like I've got a better "steal" than this thing.

[Haha @ Jun 16th 2008 12:53PM]

JoshL : With your combined 400 bucks a month, you are still driving a Kia, while some other guy is driving a car of the future.

You can keep your Kia.

[Ryan @ Jun 16th 2008 11:26AM]

I may be wrong, but I thought I heard that during the test period the $600/mo included the fuel. So if you're like me and you're spending $4k/yr on gasoline, the fuel + loan payment = $650/mo...so it's not that bad of a deal (if it includes the fuel).

[Ryan @ Jun 16th 2008 11:29AM]

8 years ago I paid $0.98/gal to fill up my car....same gas station today charged me $4.01. 400% inflation over 8 years is a real problem.

[AndyM @ Jun 16th 2008 12:35PM]

Going from x to 4x is a 300% increase.

[Kris @ Jun 16th 2008 11:32AM]

@Josh L, what you don't understand is supply and demand. Hydrogen cars, when first released, will of course be more expensive than other energies because it's new, it's not in demand and there is little supply.

This will _always_ be the case with alternative fuels. Once one becomes main stream and is integrated into your typical gas station then you'll really start seeing saving then but you're not going to see a solution overnight.

With your attitude we'll be stuck on oil forever until it really is $400 a gallon.

[Kris @ Jun 16th 2008 11:34AM]

Stupid fucking Engadget and their fucking comment fucking system

[Josh L @ Jun 16th 2008 11:47AM]

I'll reply back here so I can stop getting my inbox spammed with comment replies. Yaaay comment system! :P

Since you want to talk about economics, try this instead. All America has to do to lower gas prices worldwide is announce that we are doing any of the following (preferably all of them):

Restart the coal-for-oil program
Drill in ANWR
Drill in the Gulf of Mexico
Drill on the continental shelf
Drill in the Dakotas
Instate a shale oil program

I guarantee you that oil prices will drop like a rock overnight. Reluctance to accept impractical, cumbersome, and overpriced alternatives to oil aren't keeping prices high, nor is the planet running out of fuel for us to use. OPEC is simply trying to keep up with the increased demand from newly-industrializing countries like India and China.

The only ones responsible for keeping gas prices high are the environmental left, and those in Washington beholden to them.

[Kris @ Jun 16th 2008 12:04PM]

@Josh L, what you fail to understand is that none of those solutions are an overnight fix. None of them would be able to provide any relief until at least 6 years after their announcement. So simply announcing isn't going to do _anything_. Even doing any of those things is not going to help as we would have moved off oil much more by the time those solutions arrive.

[alexmueller @ Jun 16th 2008 12:04PM]

Okay Josh drilling in more places in the US will not make oil any cheaper. Because the oil that comes out of there needs to be set at market price. Not to mention oil will run out eventually. Oil is high because people are choosing to invest into it instead of American companies where the dollar is weak. Switching to renewable resources is the answer, take Iceland for example which is totally energy independent. I'm pretty sure they don't care how much a gallon of gas is, and when the oil crash happens they won't care either. Let's see, lets keep drilling into the ground for oil and refine it or put up wind turbines and solar panels to harness the energy that will always be available for eons.

[Josh L @ Jun 16th 2008 12:19PM]

Sigh. The "we won't see results for at least x years while we pump the oil out" argument is bogus and should be recognized as such immediately by anybody who isn't blinded by their agenda.

What do you think OPEC will do with oil prices when the US effectively says "Hey guys, thanks for the help for the past few decades. It's been really great, but we've finally realized that we can produce nearly all of the oil we need and we really won't need to do business with you anymore."

Do you think they're just going to sit back and say "Oh well, see you later, best and biggest customer in the world!" No, they're going to instantly lower prices to one that they believe will make it more economic to keep buying oil from them instead of pumping our own. This happened in 1974, and again in '79.

[phanbouy @ Jun 16th 2008 1:22PM]

what part of PEAK OIL don't you understand, Josh the Good Chevron Soldier?