BMW Shows Off World's Fastest Hydrogen Car 400
loid_void writes "According to Reuters and others BMW unveiled the world's fastest hydrogen-powered car at the Paris auto show on Wednesday, dubbed the H2R, capable of exceeding 300 kilometers (185 miles) per hour. The are also working with Shell on hydrogen dispensing stations.
'"Our drive toward the future is called hydrogen," BMW management board member Burkhard Goeschel said before the tarp slowly slipped off the teardrop-shaped body of the sleek race car.' All I want to know, does it come with an iPod hookup?"
boom (Score:5, Funny)
Re:boom (Score:4, Informative)
Re:boom (Score:3, Informative)
This is too bad inaccurate. The only serious point where hydrogen is less safe than gasoline is the flammable and explosive limits (see e.g. here [environmen...mistry.com]). While you need a spark to start a gasoline fire, a air-hydrogen mixture can start burning only because of environmental static electricity (i.e. a windy day).
Not sure it is relevant, BMW are committed to using internal-combustion engines with hydrogen. This may not be efficient
Re:boom (Score:2, Interesting)
BTW, regarding myth #2, I don't buy the theory that the Hindenburg accident was not made worse by hydrogen. If it were filled with helium, the outer skin might have burned off, but the entire frame of the airship probably would not have been instantly converted into white-hot molten aluminum. Maybe it would have gently settled to the ground, givin
Re:boom (Score:2)
I've got a Pinto with your name on it.
Re:boom (Score:5, Informative)
I'd just like to point out that 66% of the people on board the Hindenburg survived.
I'm not saying that more people couldn't have been saved, I'm just pointing out that the number of survivors is a lot higher than most people think.
Re:boom (Score:4, Informative)
Iron oxide and aluminum powder are commonly referred to as thermite and are used for producing molten iron at temperatures well in excess of aluminum's 660 C melting point. However, there is a rebuttal [colorado.edu] to this argument which indicates that the paint lacked the requisite proportions for the thermite reaction.
next step... (Score:4, Interesting)
let's see now if you can develop the world's cheapest car
Re:next step... (Score:5, Informative)
Their was also a movie by Francis Ford Coppla about him with Jeff Bridges:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096316/
Re:next step... (Score:3, Informative)
You know the URL you supplied doesn't back up your statement, right?
"The SEC took him and five associates to court because his cars didn't have all the technical features that he had promised investors in his prospectus they would. That stymied his ability to raise the money he needed to produce the 300,000 cars he had orders for. It was not a case of the "big three" motor companies acting to crush him - in fact Ford gave him steering wheels for the Lincoln Zephyr as a gesture of help."
--RJ
Re:next step... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:next step... (Score:3, Interesting)
By the way, I'll gladly jump on the bandwagon (and eat crow if it crashes) because this is the magic bullet. Electricity and pure water, made from the most abundant element in the universe. Hmm we'd sure look like asses for buying int
Great Accomplishment: Go Deutschland! (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's not be cynical. This BMW vehicle is a significant accomplishment. It shows that a high-performance vehicle running solely on hydrogen can be built.
Now, let's just entice Honda to apply Japanese manufacturing technologies to reduce the cost of the vehicle by a factor of 1000. Please remember that the Americans invented the videotape recorder (VR), and it started out at more than $10,000 per unit. Then, Japanese companies took it and
Actually it's purely a public relations exercise. (Score:3, Insightful)
This particular hydrogen vehicle is less efficient than a conventional petrol or Diesel vehicle so we're not exactly taking acheivements here.
Isn't - (Score:4, Interesting)
Which brings my question - how do you stablize hydrogen so it's not so explosive?.....A car accident could spell disaster if not properly contained...Or am I wrong?
-thewldisntenufff
Not if well designed and tested (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not if well designed and tested (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Isn't - (Score:5, Funny)
Which brings my question - how do you stablize gasoline so it's not so explosive?.....A car accident could spell disaster if not properly contained...Or am I wrong?
Re:Isn't - (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Isn't - (Score:4, Interesting)
You have a hydrogen leak, and someone walks in and flips on the light switch...
I hope, if they're going to do this, they're at least going to have the sense to perfume the hydrogen, like they do natural gas, so we can go 'Oh, crap, hydrogen leak' and run like hell.
I don't really understand the logic of hydrogen cars. If we have hydrogen, we can effortlessly convert that to 100% clean electricity via burning. So why the hell don't we just do that at the power plant?
I mean, I'd understand if we had some magical source of hydrogen, and we didn't want to lose power though the overhead of power transfer and batteries...but we don't. We have absolutely no way of getting hydrogen, outside of fossil fuels, that doesn't use up more electricity than we put into it. I've never heard of any way even proposed to get said hydrogen.
The entire concept is completely illogical, it sounds like someone realized you can burn hydrogen and get water, slept through an enviromental film, and built a 'clean' car. Hey, I can build a car that takes a continual supply of D batteries, by that logic it's a clean car.
And I have to point out the same applies to anything, thanks to thermodynamics. Everything on earth either exists at the lowest energy state, or at least will stay there if we make energy from it. We can't go around breaking up H20 and burning the H to get power, and anyone who's ever had any physics will easily explain why.
The only exceptions are things that are ultimately powered by the ouside, such as solar, wind, water, and tidal power. (Although geothermal, while a closed cycle, is not incredibly likely to run down in any measurable time. And the same with fussion and fission.)
Re:Isn't - (Score:3, Interesting)
I hope that the vent system will have a little pilot light or sparker or something, and will burn up the wasted hydrogen. Maybe even run the waste hydrogen through a fuel cell and charge a storage battery?
Except for your enclosed garage scenario, even unburned waste H2 should be safe, because it's lighter than air, so it will disperse quickly. If it settled to the ground in a pool, that would be bad. But even gases like pro
Re:Isn't - (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a stepping stone (Score:3, Informative)
Most ppl will want their gas powered cars for a few decades to come
if for any other reason than cost
In a decade or two, or three, more clean power will be developed
like Bubble Fusion(proven) or Cold Fusion(unproven)
Tidal Generators at the Bay of Fundy alone could make more power
than all the dams on earth combined . Just need to make them
underwater turbines so as not to destroy the sea floor like the large french one is doing in the
Re:Isn't - (Score:2, Informative)
That and with the Hindenberg the main problem was the explosive nature of the paint, not the hydrogen within. The Hindenburg would of been one of the cheapest, and safest, methods of flight, except for just a coupl
Re:Isn't - (Score:5, Informative)
Ahhh, good old
The article says that BMW is researching fuel cells as well, but it's concentrating on combustion engines "because the sum total of its features and characteristics offers the largest number of advantages and benefits all in one."
Actually (Score:2)
Main Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster [wikipedia.org]
From Wikipedia:
Proponents (http://www.dwv-info.de/pm/hindbg/hbe.htm) of the "flammable fabric" theory point out that the coatings on the fabric contained both iron oxide and aluminium impregnated cellulose acetate butyrate. Cellulose acetate butyrate is well known to be flammable
Re:Actually (Score:5, Informative)
Alas, the Wikipedia article forgot one aspect: the mounting bolts for the canvas covering were made of steel, which allowed a static discharge to move through the canvas covering VERY quickly. Because the Hindenberg had flown near a thunderstorm just before the explosion, there was a buildup of static electricity on the entire airship and when it discharged the mounting bolts transmitted the static discharge, causing a large portion of the canvas covering to literally explode on the initial explosion.
That's why on the short-lived airship Graf Zeppelin II (LZ 130), the Zeppelin engineers switched to bronze mounting bolts for the canvas covering, so the static discharge would not be transmitted through the mounting bolts.
By the way, the Zeppelin company actually produced an internal report about the Hindenberg explosion and that report cited issues with the potential flammability of the canvas covering doping compound. Alas, that report was quickly surpressed by the Nazi government for various reasons.
Re:Isn't - (Score:2)
Today, a rigid airship designed with mo
Re:Isn't - (Score:5, Informative)
While the hydrogen contents of the Hindenberg certainly didn't help matters, that wasn't the main problem. The skin of the Zeppelin had been cured and doped with an aluminum oxide compound that is pretty much identical to solid rocket fuel (although this flammable quality wasn't known at the time).
Go back and watch the film again-- the skin ignites and burns quickly-- rather than the whole structure exploding/popping like a ping in a balloon.
Re:Isn't - (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently the new Zepplin airship is due to be launched in the next few years. While it is helium-based (to satisfy the paranoid public), it is still three-times the size of the original Hindenberg. Should be a cool ship to see. If they could find a way to still use some hydrogen, though, they'd be able carry much more cargo, although the specs without hydrogen still allow it to carry 3 times the cargo of a 747.
I wouldn't worry a bit about hydrogen in cars for day to day driving. However, paramedics and accident response teams will have to be aware of procedures for dealing with these things, just like with electric cars.
Re:Isn't - (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, it was iron oxide and solid aluminum. These two substances can react in a very exothermic redox-reaction forming aluminum oxide. Such metal-metal oxide compounds are known as thermite.
The flammable quality was most certainly known at the time. The Germans actually used Zeppelins to drop incendiary thermite bombs on British targets during WWI.
Actually, the Hindenberg... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Isn't - (Score:5, Informative)
Hydrogen was not the cause for the Hindenberg disaster. Hydrogen burns without any visibile flame or smoeke. In the Hindenberg case, what burned was the external paint, which had a chemical composition quite similar to nitroglicerine (it wasn't known at the time).
Even more sad, most the deaths from that disaster were people jumping down while the ship was still in the air. Most of those who remained in the airship survived.
Re:Survivors? (Score:5, Informative)
Google "hindenburg survivors" perhaps? I mean, come on, there are links on the first results page! They might not give you the number of survivors, but they definitely confirm that there were some.
For the lazy:
http://www.airships.net [airships.net]
http://www.vidicom-tv.com/hindenburg/making_of.htm [vidicom-tv.com]
http://www.authentichistory.com/audio/1930s/histor y/19370506_Hindenberg_Disaster_Herb_Morrison-short .html [authentichistory.com]
-Alex
Re:Survivors? (Score:3, Informative)
From here [pilotfriend.com]
Hydrogen burns like... well hydrogen but in case of an airship you don't have a hydrogen oxygen mixture that will explode but pure hydrogen which slowly mixes with the surrounding air and burns down (the same reason why cars don't explode like in Hollywood movies but burn). Due to the sheer size of an airship, its seperated tanks and t
Re:Isn't - (Score:3, Interesting)
Any kid (with proper access to materials) can tell you H2 alone will give a fair bang, but properly mixed with pure O2 the results are much more impressive. I remember blowing the windows out of the garden shed - Mom did not believe me when we said we were making water.
Re:Isn't - (Score:2)
Re:Isn't - (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Isn't - (Score:2)
hydrogen dissipates faster (Score:5, Informative)
In the unlikely event that the car's structure was intruded enough to damage the tank, the leaking hydrogen would escape upwards and dissipate extremely rapidly. This makes it rather difficult to be ignited by, say, sparking from electrics or hot components in the engine compartment. There is no environmental impact and no cleanup- the hydrogen harmlessly dissipates up into the environment.
In a car accident with gasoline, the gasoline pools on the ground and vapors are heavier than air. That makes them very easy to ignite. Gasoline(especially with MTBE) is cancerous and must be cleaned up, and it takes a while to do so because it's so easily ignited.
Hydrogen also requires a much higher fuel/air ratio; ie there has to be a higher concentration.
The main safety problem with hydrogen is that it is molecularly so small that hoses and seals are very hard to make for it. A balloon full of hydrogen would deflate even faster than one filled with Helium...
The REAL problem with hydrogen as a transport fuel is (repeat after me, kids!)...
HYDROGEN IS A NET LOSS FUEL. IT TAKES MUCH MORE ENERGY TO PRODUCE THAN YOU GET BURNING IT.
Oh, and the fact that the main method of production cited by our really smart President is- surprise- natural gas! Well, guess what folks- you gotta use chemicals to get the H2 out of the complex hydrocarbon of LNG, and you gotta put those leftover Carbon (and other elements) into something. Expect to see hydrogen plants which dump lots of waste in the form of toxic catalysts and leftover byproducts. Or just toss it up a smokestack and make it the problem of whoever is 5,000 miles away.
Re:hydrogen dissipates faster (Score:5, Insightful)
Hydrogen can easily be generated with a solar panel, a couple of precious metal electrodes, and a big-assed water tank.
Incidentally, this is probably the most energy-efficient chemical conversion that we currently know of, as, with the exception of a small amount of impurities in the water, every single electron pumped off your negative electrode goes into breaking up one water molecule. There's no extra heat generated, there's no light, explosion, nothing. Just pure hydrogen generation.
And the other byproduct, oxygen, would be the least harmful factory byproduct of anything we currently make that could be dumped into the air, water, land, or food supply.
Re:hydrogen dissipates faster (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, producing hydrogen with solar power is so inefficient, it is incredibly expensive.
Run some numbers on solar cell efficiency. And then run some numbers on .
And after that, you just have hydrogen gas. You also have to cool it and compress it to get LH2. This also takes considerable energy, and it is a hassle to transport, because it is need to be very cold. You wouldn't think a few degrees K would make such a difference. But transport/storage of LN2 or LOX is much less expensive than fo
Re:hydrogen dissipates faster (Score:3)
As long as your solar panels are net positive energy sources, your hydrogen production will also be net positive. In many places you can produce it near your point of consumption and minimize your transport cost. It doesn't require extensively-sized equipment like cracking petroleum does - well, to do it in a cost-effective way anyhow. Minimizing transport is a good way to cut costs, in fact. One nice thing about hydrogen production is that you can use any source of electrical power for the disassociation
Re:Isn't - (Score:2)
As for the "it was the cloth, not the gas" hypothesis regarding the Hindenburg acciden
Re:Isn't - (Score:2)
Well, maybe once..
What is it with..... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What is it with..... (Score:4, Funny)
Vroom (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Vroom (Score:5, Funny)
Eh hell, those rice boys will put a sticker that says anything on their cars.
Let's see how long... (Score:5, Funny)
Pollution (Score:5, Insightful)
What I find moderately interesting about the hydrogen fuel idea is that, despite the fact that it emits only steam as a byproduct, it still takes a lot of energy to produce hydrogen. As a result, it pretty much will cause pollution regardless.
Don't get me wrong, this still reduces our dependence on oil, and will be a huge help to city pollution, but I think we need to quickly figure out some way to make hydrogen cheaply and cleanly. Maybe nuclear powered hydrogen production plants? Just thinking...
Re:Pollution (Score:2)
also preventing inner-city pollution is a huge bonus.
the best hope for the future is nuclear power now and solar/wind/wave etc. being used more and more in the future.
Re:Pollution (Score:3, Insightful)
People love to poke fun at fission and spread FUD around here. Face it, the world needs energy. Lots of it is required to sustain our civilizations. It took millions of years to generate the oil we'll use up in a few hundred years. I am all for expanding nuclear power because modern sta
Re:Pollution (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pollution (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also devastating to downstream ecologies. A major hydroelectric project like Three Gorges is an ecological disaster.
Without developing a breeder reactor the uranium will run out as well.
Okay, so develop a breeder reactor. Running in a breeder reactor, uranium would be economical at costs of $1,000 per pound (1983 dollars), and would contribute 0.03 cents per kilowatt-hour to the cost of electricity.
Or, don't develop a breeder reactor. Uranium could be extracted from seawater for far less than that, around $200-400 per pound, and there's enough of it currently in the oceans to supply the planet's current electrical needs for millions of years. Hell, if we extract 16,000 tons of it per year, that's enough to supply twice the world's energy consumption, 25 times its electrical demand.
Re:Pollution (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet not nearly so devastating per kilowatt produced as what you get from a coal plant. Furthermore, the damage done by a hydro plant is locally confined; that done by a coal plant is not. And finally, no hydro plant in the world will ruin your lungs or give you cancer.
Given the choice, I'll go with "fuck the fish" for $200!
Max
Re:Pollution (Score:2)
All commerical hydrogen is produced from oil, NOT electrolysis.
Re:Pollution (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a question... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I have an answer... (Score:2)
Any word on the range of this vehicle?
Cool! (Score:5, Funny)
Wait a minute...
Re:I have a question... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I have a question... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I have a question... (Score:3, Insightful)
We aren't going to start getting billed for all that wasted wind, are we? If that's the case, then reading Slashdot must be costing me a fortune.
consumption (Score:2)
Re:consumption (Score:2)
They get rid of the ... (Score:3, Informative)
No, good engineering.... (Score:2)
Given ther is hydrogen on-board allows the use of a fuel cell for the electronics because it's a technology showcase - not a practical car.
misses the point of hydrogen (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason for all the effort to create a new hydrogen fueling infrastructure is to take advantage of fuel cells/electric motors. A car with a hydrogen burning ICE is just an ordinary car that you can't refill at a gas station.
re: misses the point of hydrogen [again] (Score:2)
Re: misses the point of hydrogen [again] (Score:3, Informative)
Sure it will. It already has. The Earth's gravity isn't strong enough to retain hydrogen in the atmosphere.
Hydrogen simply does not exist in a free state. So to get hydrogen, you need to manufacture it.
This is done commercially via the reformation of hydrocarbons like natural gas. And, like you suggest, they'll run out.
You can also manufacture hydrogen through the electrolysis of water. This takes electricity. You get your electricity from
Re: misses the point of hydrogen [again] (Score:3, Interesting)
Now to the part you haven't bothered to learn about. Several types of algae exist in nature that produce hydrogen as a byproduct of photosynthesis.
In addition, hydrogen can also be produced using biomass.
Both are renewable, and don't rely on fossil fuels to make hydrogen.
Re: misses the point of hydrogen [again] (Score:3, Funny)
Re: misses the point of hydrogen [again] (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:misses the point of hydrogen (Score:2)
Anyway, since producing fuel cells, which use hydrogen, is what causes pollution I don't see any problems with the ICE approach.
No, it paves the way (Score:2)
The best way to wean people onto such renewables is to do it in a way that seamlessly replaces what they are used to. Look, electric cars have been in use for 110+years, in fact at one time an electric car set the landspeed record (Jenatzy's 'Le Jamais Contente') - so where are the electric cars? Right, limited range, severe performance:range tradeoffs etc. This doesn;t change just by using the magic word ' fuel cell'. They are heavy, have complex control regimen and are too fragile for mai
Re:misses the point of hydrogen (Score:3, Interesting)
kinda old news (Score:2)
Yahoo news --->[2 day holding pipe] --->
That care probably costs $200,000 (Score:3, Funny)
At that price, it better come with a freaking iPod.
How to keep it cool? (Score:5, Interesting)
"...the specially insulated 140-liter tank for the liquid hydrogen provides a range of 400 kilometers....By cooling hydrogen to -253 degrees Celsius, hydrogen is shrunk to a thousandth of its original volume. 70 layers of aluminum and fiberglass sheets between the exterior and interior vehicle walls insure that the liquid hydrogen remains at extremely low temperatures."
What I don't understand is how they manage to keep it at such a low temperature. If the tank warmed up to the normal temperature of the surrounding environment, the pressure inside the tank would be 1000 times greater than sea level. Wouldn't that pose a danger of explosion?
Re:How to keep it cool? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:How to keep it cool? (Score:2)
I would be concerned if my safety involved keeping a 35 gallon tank (about 2/3 of a 55 gallon oil drum) at -253 C. That's 20 above absolute zero? That's gotta be a damn good cooling system.
Re:How to keep it cool? (Score:4, Interesting)
"Hydrogen power" is still a ripoff. What we need are nuclear cars. That would solve the carbon emissions problem, and everyone would be nervous and drive more carefully so it would save lives too.
Re:How to keep it cool? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How to keep it cool? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the concept of an overpressure release valve is well understood by automotive engineers... so the worst case would be that you come back to find your tank empty.
Hydrogen conversion for ``normal'' car? (Score:2)
Here's something that's been bothering me for some time.
We keep hearing about all these ultra high-tech hydrogen cars of the future. And, I've heard persistent rumors of, for example, some guy in Tucson who's converted a regular old (and I do mean old) pickup truck to run off hydrogen gas.
So...why can't I buy a fuel tank and carburetor alternative for my '68 VW Camper? It would seem to be a natural. Keep the exact same car, the exact same engine, and just deliver aerated hydrogen to the intake manifold
Re:Hydrogen conversion for ``normal'' car? (Score:4, Informative)
A normal 8:1 compression small block Chevy V8 from the mid-80's will generate 25-50% less power on hydrogen than on gasoline. The reasons for that 8:1 compression are emissions, preignition due to octane rating, and a few other things.
Hydrogen doesn't have the preignition problems of gasoline, though, so you could run an 18:1 compression ration in the same SBC, provided the crank and main bearings can take it. This should give you close to the same power output as 8:1 on dead prehistoric things, but wouldn't be able to be run on gasoline, anymore. Nothing short of jet fuel, anyway....
The problem becomes, no after-market manufacturer makes piston/head combinations for SBC's to go over about 13:1 compression. So, without a turbo, supercharger, or ram-air, you can't get the "required" amount of power.
If you're ok with a slower car, with near-zero emissions, go for it. Otherwise, you're going to need to get engine components custom-made, which is prohibitively expensive for most hobbyists. (I know...I've already looked into doing this for a 3.8 Buick-powered 1984 Pontiac Grand Prix.)
The other alternative would be to start with a diesel engine, which will already have an appropriate compression ratio. You'll need to do some interesting machine work on the head, though, as the diesel has no spark plug holes. I don't know if a diesel fuel injector could be replaced with a standard spark plug, or whether the threads/diameter wouldn't match, though, so this could turn out to be only a minor problem. Also, diesel engines are more expensive than gasoline, due to their heavier construction. This wouldn't bother some people, but I don't have a diesel engine sitting around to experiment with.
The next thing would be to somehow connect a spark ignition system to a diesel engine block, which was never designed to use such an animal.
etc.etc.etc.etc.
Suffice it to say, there are problems with this approach. Not insurmountable, by any means, but not something average Joe Schmuck is going to do in his back yard.
I wonder what it sounds like... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think I would be an early adopter for this if:
I don't think I'd even need shell to be on board if I could make the stuff at home.
Now I wonder what the engine sounds like! It probably growls at wide open throttle in third gear : )
Once again, the Germans beat us. (Score:2, Interesting)
For all our talk about how hydrogen is the future of cars, I've not yet seen one American car--not even a concept car--running on hydrogen. The Germans really build spectacular cars.
The Japanese, too; the New Ford Escape Hybrid runs on Toyota's first-generation hybrid motor.
Re:Once again, the Germans beat us. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ford [focaljet.com]
General Motors [wired.com]
Shelby Cobra [wheels24.co.za]
[google, of course, is your friend]
And if you think there is a 'real' difference between, say, Ford and Toyota, or Chrysler and Mercedes, or GM and SAAB....You're sadly mistaken. They share designs all over. The car companies are the epitome of 'multinational'. And it's wise to let the smaller companies pioneer a new concept. They can do it faster. And if it pans out....embrace and extend.
Mazda has a hydrogen-powered rotary (Score:5, Interesting)
The renesis (side-ported intake and exhaust - 'normal' rotaries have peripheral exhaust and often intake ports and intake/exhaust port overlap is employed to maximise performance at high revs, resulting in the characteristic 'brap-brap-brap' pulsing idle of a race or drag rotary engine and incredibly poor fuel economy at low revs) rotary engine doesnt suffer from this problem, allowing high-revs, aggressive induction and exhaust port profiles, along withthe light weight and excellent power-weight ratio rotaries inherently possess.
The current hybrid engine in the RX-8 only produces about 120hp when operating on hydrogen which isn't exactly stunning, but bear in mind that the original RX-7 produced less than this, while the last model to roll off the production line produced in excess of 280.
400+ HP is relatively easily acheiveable with proper porting, fueling and turbocharging of the 1.3 litre 13B engine on petrol, and with further development (or even tuning for hydrogen-only operation) it is not too far fetched to imagine the hydrogen-powered rotary performing on par or better than conventional fuels.
More info can be found:
http://rotarynews.com/?q=node/view/216
and a hydrogen--powered RX-8 looks like:
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/frame.php?file=p
Nice looking cars (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm surprised to be hearing anything about this (Score:4, Interesting)
The simple facts are that hydrogen is not a source of energy, but rather an energy carrier, like electricity. And hydrogen is a rather poor energy carrier at that; it's far less efficient than the electric power grid, which already exists and goes almost everywhere. Hydrogen isn't even a good energy storage medium in a car, due to its extremely low density.
The fact is that there's nothing a hydrogen fuel-cell car can do that isn't already done better, more efficiently and more cheaply by a battery EV. Just when new battery technologies like nickel metal hydride and lithium-ion were starting to prove their worth in EVs, CARB pulls the rug out from under them.
Call me cynical, but that seems to fit the facts.
Re:I'm surprised to be hearing anything about this (Score:3)
Overlooking the obvious, once again (Score:3, Informative)
And solar power is where it's at. In these times of global warming and increasing desertification, there's really one source that provides energy constantly: The sun. I seriously doubt that the investements needed to get a solar powered economy up and running, with the power coming from all the huge deserts in the world, would be that huge.
It would be a boon for most Saharan countries, the Arabs once again, as well as basically anywhere there is a lot of sun.
All it requires is someone to get the ball rolling. And that's what I like about this BMW/Shell project. It's getting that ball rolling.
Still with the cars? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not even like hydrogen-burning cars are entirely clean. Sure, you can drink the water from the exhaust, but any compression engine will produce oxides of nitrogen unless they also carry a tank of pure oxygen (which would clean up a gasoline engine in much the same manner). Fuel cells are much cleaner, but I don't think they're developed enough yet for the mainstream.
The use of hydrogen makes cars more dangerous, too. To put it simply, a compressed fuel is a dangerous fuel. Any accident that breaches the H2 tank turns the vehicle into a fuel-air explosive. I don't think the public will stand for too many fireballs on the highway. Contrary to what Hollywood would have you believe, cars almost never explode and rarely catch fire in accidents.
Worse still, a mass changeover to hydrogen as our vehicle fuel would cause huge economic upheaval. Hydrogen consumes huge amounts of power to produce, and it adds no energy to our system; it merely acts as a relatively convenient energy storage vessel. Petroleum, on the other hand, consumes very little energy to reach its refined state and contributes a large portion of our total energy use. If it were mandated today that hydrogen must replace gasoline for vehicles, energy prices across the board would probably triple.
Hydrogen makes nice PR, but it will never power vehicles until oil has become so expensive due to scarcity that we've already migrated to other, renewable energy sources.
The dangers of gas powered cars (Score:4, Interesting)
I have never heard of an exploding gas tank, the tanks are apparently so solid that they crush everything around them but stay intact themselves.
Forgetting to unplug the nozzle while filling up happens relatively often. There's a special weak spot in the tube that breaks in such cases. Also you have to keep a button on the gas pump depressed for the pump to operate. Release it and the gas flow stops. Driving away without unpluggng is harmless (except to your wallet). I've never heard of accidents with pumps.
There have been some accidents with LPG delivery trucks that supply the gas stations. I believe there was big one near a camping ground in Spain quite a while ago.
I can understand driving with a gas tank in your car may seem scary to people who aren't used to it, but we do so without worrying over here.
Of course, I don't know how Hydrogen compares to LPG for these purposes. That might well be a whole different story.
X.
Re:Hang on. Isn't the idea to *increase* efficienc (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hang on. Isn't the idea to *increase* efficienc (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This thing doesn't run on hydrogen... (Score:3, Insightful)