RE: BMW to make H2-fuelled car
Tuesday 14th November 2006
BMW Hydrogen 7BMW has announced the start of production of the new BMW Hydrogen 7, which it reckons is the world’s first hydrogen-powered luxury saloon car -- although it can also run on standard petrol.
BMW to produce hydrogen car
Limited edition 'enviro-friendly' motor
BMW Hydrogen 7
Destined to make its first public appearance on 28 November at the Los Angeles Motor Show, the Hydrogen 7 will be built in limited numbers and offered to selected users in 2007.
The BMW Hydrogen 7 is based on the existing 7 Series and comes equipped with an internal combustion engine capable of running on liquid hydrogen or petrol. In hydrogen mode, the car emits just water vapour.
Curiously, BMW said that the Hydrogen 7 is "powered by a 260hp 12-cylinder engine", and gets "from zero to 62mph in 9.5 seconds before going on to an electronically limited 143mph top speed".
This implies that the car is powered by the 3.0-litre six-cylinder motor that sits in the entry-level 730i -- although that machine gets to 60mph in 7.8 seconds, so you can infer that the weight of the hydrogen tank is substantial. PH is investigating this apparent anomaly.
With its unique dual power engine, the driver of a Hydrogen 7 can switch quickly and conveniently from hydrogen to conventional petrol power at the press of a steering wheel-mounted button. The dual power technology means the car has a cruising range in excess of 125 miles in the hydrogen mode with a further 300 miles under petrol power. To make this possible the BMW Hydrogen 7 comes with a conventional 74-litre petrol tank and an additional hydrogen fuel tank holding up to 8kgs of liquid hydrogen. Such flexibility means the driver of a BMW Hydrogen 7 is able to use the vehicle at all times, even when the nearest hydrogen filling station is out of range.
Engine power and torque in the Hydrogen 7 remain exactly the same regardless of which fuel is in current use. The driver can switch between the two without any effect on driving behaviour or performance. The car always gives priority to the use of hydrogen but, should this run out, it automatically switches to petrol power.
BMW reckoned that, unlike many previous hydrogen concept cars, the Hydrogen 7 is a production-ready vehicle, which has met all the stringent processes and final sign-off criteria that every current BMW model undergoes.
A total of 100 BMW Hydrogen 7s will be built in 2007. Details on pricing and the destinations of the 100 cars will be announced at a later date.
Why hydrogen?
The BMW Group has been committed to hydrogen technology as a means of reducing car emissions, in particular CO2 emissions, for over 20 years. Unlike fossil fuels from which petrol is derived, hydrogen is available in virtually infinite supply -- when renewable energies such as solar, wind and wave power are used to produce the liquid hydrogen. Stored in a tank that keeps the fuel at a pressure of 3-5 bar and a consistent temperature of -250°C, liquid hydrogen offers significant advantages in energy density compared to other possible alternative fuel sources to enhance the cruising range of the car.
BMW didn't say how much weight the high pressure tank adds to the car, nor what effect this might have on handling. It also didn't comment on the progress it's making on the development of environmentally-friendly hydrogen production and distribution systems.
Update
BMW has confirmed that the car is based on the 760i, and that the engine in the Hydrogen 7 is the 5.9-litre V12. A BMW spokesman said that the motor's cylinder head has been altered to account for hydrogen's different burning characteristics, which accounts for the some of the lower output -- the V12 normally puts out a healthy 445bhp. He also said that the car weighs almost 300Kg more than the standard 760i's 2,180Kg due to the weight of the extra plumbing and the high-pressure tank, which accounts for the sluggish performance.
Update added 15:44, 14 Nov 2006
Discussion
Absolutely. I thought Hydrogen cells were expensive to make (& clearly down on power) yet Bio mass fuels are available & as you say many cars can run on them (with extra power-but less economy) If only this stupid grabbing UK Govt would cut fuel tax on it, it could rapidly become a mainstream fuel. Why are we not experimenting with commercial energy production from Bio mass fuel. Every sugar beet farmer would welcome a clean green power plant on doorstep-without campaigns for/against wind turbines. Must be some technical explanation-anyone ?? 
I would be very surprised if, other than some issues about agricultural capacity that may be resolvable through improved technology, the main factor blocking biofuels is not political rather than technical.
After all, the Swedes, and to a lesser extent the Brazilians, are already happily using biofuels.
We, on the other hand, have administrations seemingly composed of, or at least very friendly with, oilmen. As a result, while the public face is looking concerned and complaining about pollution and sustainability, the unseen hands are busy pumping oil in as fast as it can be pumped.
I've no doubt there's also some concern internationally over what would happen to various countries with a solely oil-dependent economy should the world's largest consumers turn round and say, effectively, "Sorry Mr OPEC, just one bottle today, we've started growing our own."
After all, the Swedes, and to a lesser extent the Brazilians, are already happily using biofuels.
We, on the other hand, have administrations seemingly composed of, or at least very friendly with, oilmen. As a result, while the public face is looking concerned and complaining about pollution and sustainability, the unseen hands are busy pumping oil in as fast as it can be pumped.
I've no doubt there's also some concern internationally over what would happen to various countries with a solely oil-dependent economy should the world's largest consumers turn round and say, effectively, "Sorry Mr OPEC, just one bottle today, we've started growing our own."
Edited by timberwolf on Tuesday 14th November 12:07
timberwolf said:
I would be very surprised if, other than some issues about agricultural capacity that may be resolvable through improved technology, the main factor blocking biofuels is not political rather than technical.
After all, the Swedes, and to a lesser extent the Brazilians, are already happily using biofuels.
We, on the other hand, have administrations seemingly composed of, or at least very friendly with, oilmen. As a result, while the public face is looking concerned and complaining about pollution and sustainability, the unseen hands are busy pumping oil in as fast as it can be pumped.
I've no doubt there's also some concern internationally over what would happen to various countries with a solely oil-dependent economy should the world's largest consumers turn round and say, effectively, "Sorry Mr OPEC, just one bottle today, we've started growing our own."
After all, the Swedes, and to a lesser extent the Brazilians, are already happily using biofuels.
We, on the other hand, have administrations seemingly composed of, or at least very friendly with, oilmen. As a result, while the public face is looking concerned and complaining about pollution and sustainability, the unseen hands are busy pumping oil in as fast as it can be pumped.
I've no doubt there's also some concern internationally over what would happen to various countries with a solely oil-dependent economy should the world's largest consumers turn round and say, effectively, "Sorry Mr OPEC, just one bottle today, we've started growing our own."
Edited by timberwolf on Tuesday 14th November 12:07
Sounds like it IS political to me then !!!
sprinter885 said:
Absolutely. I thought Hydrogen cells were expensive to make (& clearly down on power) yet Bio mass fuels are available & as you say many cars can run on them (with extra power-but less economy) If only this stupid grabbing UK Govt would cut fuel tax on it, it could rapidly become a mainstream fuel. Why are we not experimenting with commercial energy production from Bio mass fuel. Every sugar beet farmer would welcome a clean green power plant on doorstep-without campaigns for/against wind turbines. Must be some technical explanation-anyone ??
You are so right these damn greenies just don't want to hear about biofuels it seems! We have elections here in Holland in a few days and was interested to see what the Green party would say about this in their political programmes; Nothing! With this stuff we can cut emissions by nearly half if I'm right very quickly! So why not use it then? Probaply because they're just a bunch of damn 'social' communists who want to tax the sh*t out of people with bigger cars! It's just ridiculous!
Happily we probaply won't be getting a left govt, but a govt who want to raise motorway speeds to 130 KPH and who wants more and wider motorways!!!
Bio fuel is not ideal as creating the fuel is a drain on energy in terms of the land required, fertilizer and conversion into combustible material. I'm currently writing a thesis on the topic which is interesting and read a journal published by the University of California that states that a stong emphasis on converting to ethanol benefit us and the environment to which they deduce no.
They argue that you require 1.5 gallons of ethanol to replace 1 gallon of gasoline and so it is a less efficient fuel. In addition as it is soluble in water there could be issues regarding contanimation of ground water supplies.
Finally bit most people don't acknowledge is that corn is converted to ethanol for fuel, however, the energy accumulation in the corn is not controlled by solar energy instead it is proportional to depletion of fertilised soil given sufficient water.
Won't go into to all the mathamatical findings however the findings surmise that to get 1.74 gallons of ethanol equivilent fuel you are required to spend 3.2 gallons of gasoline equivilent fuel. A loss of 65%. A such creating ethanol requires, as a minimum, at least as much fossil fuel energy to create equivilent levels of ethanol, as we would gain by simply burning the ethanol in the first place.
Hope this wasn't too boring! Just saw many comments regarding bio fuels and thought you might like a scientific perspective. If want to see the original journal is can be found in the Journal of Environment, Development and Sustainability (2005) 7: 319-336. Ethanol from Corn: clean renewable fuel for the future or drain on our resources and pockets?
They argue that you require 1.5 gallons of ethanol to replace 1 gallon of gasoline and so it is a less efficient fuel. In addition as it is soluble in water there could be issues regarding contanimation of ground water supplies.
Finally bit most people don't acknowledge is that corn is converted to ethanol for fuel, however, the energy accumulation in the corn is not controlled by solar energy instead it is proportional to depletion of fertilised soil given sufficient water.
Won't go into to all the mathamatical findings however the findings surmise that to get 1.74 gallons of ethanol equivilent fuel you are required to spend 3.2 gallons of gasoline equivilent fuel. A loss of 65%. A such creating ethanol requires, as a minimum, at least as much fossil fuel energy to create equivilent levels of ethanol, as we would gain by simply burning the ethanol in the first place.
Hope this wasn't too boring! Just saw many comments regarding bio fuels and thought you might like a scientific perspective. If want to see the original journal is can be found in the Journal of Environment, Development and Sustainability (2005) 7: 319-336. Ethanol from Corn: clean renewable fuel for the future or drain on our resources and pockets?
Thanks for the findings from the article 
I guess corn is not the only way to generate ethanol and potentially something more efficient exists? I'd like to hear more about it
As for the engine, it is derived from the 6 liter 12 cyl engine, with hydrogen it simply generates much less power. IIRC there were experiments with the old BMW 750 already. Given the poor output they took the largest engine, to get at least a semi decent performance out of the car. The cars were often featured in Auto Motor und Sport in Germany, as examples of how green BMW is. It is unlikely that hydrogen will surpass a small publicity stunt, since other forms of propulsion are a lot easier to implement. Electric power has an existing distribution network, and in the time frame where hydrogen power becomes viable, so will electric propulsion.
I guess corn is not the only way to generate ethanol and potentially something more efficient exists? I'd like to hear more about it
As for the engine, it is derived from the 6 liter 12 cyl engine, with hydrogen it simply generates much less power. IIRC there were experiments with the old BMW 750 already. Given the poor output they took the largest engine, to get at least a semi decent performance out of the car. The cars were often featured in Auto Motor und Sport in Germany, as examples of how green BMW is. It is unlikely that hydrogen will surpass a small publicity stunt, since other forms of propulsion are a lot easier to implement. Electric power has an existing distribution network, and in the time frame where hydrogen power becomes viable, so will electric propulsion.
I'd like to draw a distinction between "bio-diesel" - diesel-compatible fuel made from recycled vegetable-based (and other natural) oils - and 'bio-fuels', which usually mean some varient of ethanol. As has just been pointed out, commercial production of ethanol is usually an illogical, politically-motivated sop (Brazil, with it's huge reserves of biomass - from it's trashing of it's rainforests - is a special case...), whereas bio-diesel can have some benificial effects, at almost no effort. However, these "alternative" fuels all share the same problem: they add to the atmosphere's carbon-load.
The huge, lasting advantage to Hydrogen as a fuel is that it's combustion adds nothing to the carbon-emissions problem. As a civilization, we must swallow the (admittedly huge) expense of developing a sustainable electricity-production infrastructure capable of supplying sufficient hydrogen to meet our fuel needs - nothing short of this is going to work, in the long run.
A small, lightweight, rear-engined car, with a hydrogen-burning turbine supplying electricity to an electric motor/CVT drivetrain would be insanely efficient, sustainable and (potentially) big fun!
The huge, lasting advantage to Hydrogen as a fuel is that it's combustion adds nothing to the carbon-emissions problem. As a civilization, we must swallow the (admittedly huge) expense of developing a sustainable electricity-production infrastructure capable of supplying sufficient hydrogen to meet our fuel needs - nothing short of this is going to work, in the long run.
A small, lightweight, rear-engined car, with a hydrogen-burning turbine supplying electricity to an electric motor/CVT drivetrain would be insanely efficient, sustainable and (potentially) big fun!
GreenV8S said:
elliothand said:
I'm currently writing a thesis on the topic
In that case you might know the answer to this: how much land would need to be dedicated to bio fuel production in order to replace the UK current fossil fuel consumption?
Sorry, haven't got all the exact figures to hand but can give you a general idea... in 2001 130billion gallons of gasoline were burned in the US so I'll try to calculate the land from that figure... (sorry if wrong as don't have any scrap paper handy!).
You can get 0.87 gallons of gasoline equivilent fuel from 1 bushel of corn and the average corn field will produce a yield of 136 bushels per acre per year. Therefore at a very rough estimate (not got time to go through all the figures and include actual yields compared to ideal or downtime on fields...1 year in every 4 if my gcse in geography was correct):
0.87 x 136 = 118.32 equivilent units of gasoline per acre of land.
130b / 118.32 = 1.1b acres of land required to meet 2001's consumption of gasoline in US alone. This would be a minimum figure based on 100% efficiencies and no down time.
Stephen White said:
The huge, lasting advantage to Hydrogen as a fuel is that it's combustion adds nothing to the carbon-emissions problem. As a civilization, we must swallow the (admittedly huge) expense of developing a sustainable electricity-production infrastructure capable of supplying sufficient hydrogen to meet our fuel needs - nothing short of this is going to work, in the long run.
A small, lightweight, rear-engined car, with a hydrogen-burning turbine supplying electricity to an electric motor/CVT drivetrain would be insanely efficient, sustainable and (potentially) big fun!
A small, lightweight, rear-engined car, with a hydrogen-burning turbine supplying electricity to an electric motor/CVT drivetrain would be insanely efficient, sustainable and (potentially) big fun!
I rather doubt it is possible to generate enough electricity for hydrogen production without the use of Nuclear power. I don't know about you but to me Nuclear is not a green option.
If you are going to the effort of producing such huge quantities of electricity to power cars, why not use the electricity to power the vehicle directly?
mybrainhurts said:
What a car...!
Emits NO Co2 (which = less than 3% of greenhouse gas)
Emits water vapour (which = 97% of greenhouse gas)
Well done, BMW...
Emits NO Co2 (which = less than 3% of greenhouse gas)
Emits water vapour (which = 97% of greenhouse gas)
Well done, BMW...
You've taken quite a simplistic view. Planet always been mostly consisting of water and as it evaporates it will form the majority of our atmosphere. Trouble is that we are artificially increasing the concentration of CO2 which also absorbs radiation at the frequency the earth reflects.
True it is not ideal but at least the proposed engine would not emit other polutants and what you would hope is that as we would be extracting water from the rivers or sea's, once burnt the H20 would stay at close to ground level and precipitate back to earth rather, replenishing the rivers and sea's then rise into stratosphere (could be the wrong area of atmosphere that causing problems - ionosphere is for the ozone layer so guessing that stratosphere is the greenhouse...). If the water vapour remains close to ground level will not have as profound effect on global warming as at atmospheric levels. But please understand this is all just me speculating!
elliothand said:
Sorry, haven't got all the exact figures to hand but can give you a general idea... in 2001 130billion gallons of gasoline were burned in the US so I'll try to calculate the land from that figure... (sorry if wrong as don't have any scrap paper handy!).
You can get 0.87 gallons of gasoline equivilent fuel from 1 bushel of corn and the average corn field will produce a yield of 136 bushels per acre per year. Therefore at a very rough estimate (not got time to go through all the figures and include actual yields compared to ideal or downtime on fields...1 year in every 4 if my gcse in geography was correct):
0.87 x 136 = 118.32 equivilent units of gasoline per acre of land.
130b / 118.32 = 1.1b acres of land required to meet 2001's consumption of gasoline in US alone. This would be a minimum figure based on 100% efficiencies and no down time.
You can get 0.87 gallons of gasoline equivilent fuel from 1 bushel of corn and the average corn field will produce a yield of 136 bushels per acre per year. Therefore at a very rough estimate (not got time to go through all the figures and include actual yields compared to ideal or downtime on fields...1 year in every 4 if my gcse in geography was correct):
0.87 x 136 = 118.32 equivilent units of gasoline per acre of land.
130b / 118.32 = 1.1b acres of land required to meet 2001's consumption of gasoline in US alone. This would be a minimum figure based on 100% efficiencies and no down time.
That's a lot! But if we only would try to use it more, it could cut emissions without loss of driving pleasure for petrolheads! That's a big point. And beside that it will decrease oil consumption a lot which means I WILL be able to drive TVRs, Lotuses etc in 60 years time when the oil will allegedly be all used up if keep on using it at the rate we do now!
SO PLEASE START USING BIO-FUEL!
kurtiejjj said:
elliothand said:
Sorry, haven't got all the exact figures to hand but can give you a general idea... in 2001 130billion gallons of gasoline were burned in the US so I'll try to calculate the land from that figure... (sorry if wrong as don't have any scrap paper handy!).
You can get 0.87 gallons of gasoline equivilent fuel from 1 bushel of corn and the average corn field will produce a yield of 136 bushels per acre per year. Therefore at a very rough estimate (not got time to go through all the figures and include actual yields compared to ideal or downtime on fields...1 year in every 4 if my gcse in geography was correct):
0.87 x 136 = 118.32 equivilent units of gasoline per acre of land.
130b / 118.32 = 1.1b acres of land required to meet 2001's consumption of gasoline in US alone. This would be a minimum figure based on 100% efficiencies and no down time.
You can get 0.87 gallons of gasoline equivilent fuel from 1 bushel of corn and the average corn field will produce a yield of 136 bushels per acre per year. Therefore at a very rough estimate (not got time to go through all the figures and include actual yields compared to ideal or downtime on fields...1 year in every 4 if my gcse in geography was correct):
0.87 x 136 = 118.32 equivilent units of gasoline per acre of land.
130b / 118.32 = 1.1b acres of land required to meet 2001's consumption of gasoline in US alone. This would be a minimum figure based on 100% efficiencies and no down time.
That's a lot! But if we only would try to use it more, it could cut emissions without loss of driving pleasure for petrolheads! That's a big point. And beside that it will decrease oil consumption a lot which means I WILL be able to drive TVRs, Lotuses etc in 60 years time when the oil will allegedly be all used up if keep on using it at the rate we do now!
SO PLEASE START USING BIO-FUEL!
Sorry you obviously didn't read my earlier post... you are still required, as a minimum, to burn 1 gallon of petrol/ fossil fuel to gain 1 gallon of ethanol (which will then only provide 2/3 the energy).
In addition forgot to mention earlier that corn production errodes soil 18x faster then it can be reformed which all contributes to the negative net energy from the production of ethanol based bio fuels.
Let me get this straight…. So this car produces water vapour instead of the usual concoction of noxious gasses that are killing this planet (If the greenies are to be believed)…
So all this water vapour either condenses, and in cold weather will mean more ice on the roads, or will float up into the atmosphere to join all the other clouds. Now forgive my ignorance here but surely more clouds = more rain and less heat getting through to warm my pot plants. So less warm weather crops and therefore no more corn flakes or wheatabix in the morning.
Surely more moisture in the atmosphere = greater likely hood of lets say hurricanes.. After all hurricanes are due to two bands of air at different densities bumping into one another. And with more moisture in the air we’d certainly have a greater difference between air densities and therefore more storms of epic proportions.
I might be totally off the plot here (almost certainly am) but can someone explain to me how hydrogen can be a better source for powering cars? I seem to have managed to come up with an argument against it… Or am I smoking too many leaves from my pot plant?
So all this water vapour either condenses, and in cold weather will mean more ice on the roads, or will float up into the atmosphere to join all the other clouds. Now forgive my ignorance here but surely more clouds = more rain and less heat getting through to warm my pot plants. So less warm weather crops and therefore no more corn flakes or wheatabix in the morning.
Surely more moisture in the atmosphere = greater likely hood of lets say hurricanes.. After all hurricanes are due to two bands of air at different densities bumping into one another. And with more moisture in the air we’d certainly have a greater difference between air densities and therefore more storms of epic proportions.
I might be totally off the plot here (almost certainly am) but can someone explain to me how hydrogen can be a better source for powering cars? I seem to have managed to come up with an argument against it… Or am I smoking too many leaves from my pot plant?
mini_ralf said:
Let me get this straight…. So this car produces water vapour instead of the usual concoction of noxious gasses that are killing this planet (If the greenies are to be believed)…
So all this water vapour either condenses, and in cold weather will mean more ice on the roads, or will float up into the atmosphere to join all the other clouds. Now forgive my ignorance here but surely more clouds = more rain and less heat getting through to warm my pot plants. So less warm weather crops and therefore no more corn flakes or wheatabix in the morning.
Surely more moisture in the atmosphere = greater likely hood of lets say hurricanes.. After all hurricanes are due to two bands of air at different densities bumping into one another. And with more moisture in the air we’d certainly have a greater difference between air densities and therefore more storms of epic proportions.
I might be totally off the plot here (almost certainly am) but can someone explain to me how hydrogen can be a better source for powering cars? I seem to have managed to come up with an argument against it… Or am I smoking too many leaves from my pot plant?
So all this water vapour either condenses, and in cold weather will mean more ice on the roads, or will float up into the atmosphere to join all the other clouds. Now forgive my ignorance here but surely more clouds = more rain and less heat getting through to warm my pot plants. So less warm weather crops and therefore no more corn flakes or wheatabix in the morning.
Surely more moisture in the atmosphere = greater likely hood of lets say hurricanes.. After all hurricanes are due to two bands of air at different densities bumping into one another. And with more moisture in the air we’d certainly have a greater difference between air densities and therefore more storms of epic proportions.
I might be totally off the plot here (almost certainly am) but can someone explain to me how hydrogen can be a better source for powering cars? I seem to have managed to come up with an argument against it… Or am I smoking too many leaves from my pot plant?
He he... maybe a few too many leaves... think you are over estimating the difference to the concentration levels of H20 that we would be able to artificially induce (it is already at 97% so moving it to 98% might only have negligable effects). Unlike moving CO2 concentrations from I'd guess 2% to close to 3 %.. pure guess and speculation so please correct if wrong! As such I'd deduce that changing the concentration of H20 in the atmosphere would have a much smaller effect.
Also you need to consider that by moving to H20 emissions the concetration of C02 in the atmosphere will gradually reduce as C02 will react and form rain or it can also be absorbed (via natural processes into the oceans on roughly 1000 year cycles after which it will be released. This is where the debate over climate changes occurs... ie is it man made or is it because its just time for the oceans to start dumping C02 again rather then absorbing it). Think shift in politics now coinsides with unrefutable evidence that we are affecting planet... the extent of which is debatable though... he he...
Gassing Station | BMW General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff