RE: BMW to make H2-fuelled car
Discussion
KM2 said:
It is unlikely that hydrogen will surpass a small publicity stunt
I agree with this, and don't understand why BMW are bothering. I hadn't even realised that an IC engine powered by hydrogen would be so much less powerful than on petrol. For every H2 molecule burnt, one O atom is required - so for every 20kg of hydrogen, 180kg of water vapour comes out the back. That's a lot of water vapour - if hydrogen were a viable fuel and the majority of vehicles switched to it, we'd start to suffer the consequences of a vast increase in localised water emissions. Clouds/fog over motorways and towns, permanently wet roads, and no doubt unpredictable other effects. Water doesn't just dissipate, and isn't absorbed by plants like CO2.
This completely ignores the efficiency argument. Say hydrogen could be extracted 99% efficiently from water so that virtually all the energy used to split the molecules was available to power your vehicle; a petrol IC engine is less than 50% efficient and it seems (from the max power output) that a hydrogen car is worse still. So it's not a replacement for petrol, it's an alternative, with unknown consequences and more awkward to produce, store and handle. Surprised BMW can't see this - or maybe they can, and they'll admit as much and wait a while before saying it justifies sticking with petrol.
SJobson said:
It is unlikely that hydrogen will surpass a small publicity stunt
I agree with this, and don't understand why BMW are bothering. I hadn't even realised that an IC engine powered by hydrogen would be so much less powerful than on petrol. For every H2 molecule burnt, one O atom is required - so for every 20kg of hydrogen, 180kg of water vapour comes out the back. That's a lot of water vapour - if hydrogen were a viable fuel and the majority of vehicles switched to it, we'd start to suffer the consequences of a vast increase in localised water emissions. Clouds/fog over motorways and towns, permanently wet roads, and no doubt unpredictable other effects. Water doesn't just dissipate, and isn't absorbed by plants like CO2.[/quote]
You clealy didn't write this while sat in the South East of England in November with a hosepipe ban!
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.
I recently attended a seminar thing about biofuels (work for Big Oil....). One of the key reasons given by the Head of European refining for the lack of significant biofuels production was that each EU member state has a different policy on the subject, or no policy at all, making a pan-European refining operation too full of uncertainties and thus both stupidly complicated and expensive. The opinion seemed to be that if we can get a cohesive EU biofuels agreement, we could pretty much produce the stuff at the drop of a hat, although it would still be expensive as the feedstocks are currently too fragmented. There was also an interesting presentation about next gen synthetic biofuels...not quite a flux capacitor, but not far off!
mybrainhurts said:
elliothand said:
unrefutable evidence that we are affecting planet...
And what might that irrefutable evidence be..?
Appologies for my spelling! he he.. without a spell checker I am useless! Not an evironmental activist and have no desire to start a debate over if we have affected the planet or if that is okay... I love driving fast cars, flying on planes etc but in my experience (degree in chemistry with modules in environmental chemistry and a msc in management where I am writting a thesis on these issues but trying to match them to the needs and drivers of the car industry) have come across loads of irrefutable (
) evidence we have had an effect on the planet. I'll give the hole in the ozone layer as an example of an undenyable man made effect on the planet. With regards to global warming you can believe what you want... if you look in most academic journals they will support the belief that we are having an effect, what scientists and politicians usually fight over is the extent of the effect and the solution. Please don't misinterpret this as giving my opinion, I'm not trying to debate the ethics of it just trying offer some facts as people seemed to be interested in why bio fuels weren't necissarily the solution.
Yes, but extremely limited in number - single figures probably. The problem is that no one will build Hydrogen filling stations if there are no hydrogen vehicles (and no one will build hydrogen vehicles if there are no filling stations etc etc). This is effectively a declaration from BMW that says bivalent vehicles can be produced as and when the re-fuelling infrastructure becomes available.
elliothand said:
kurtiejjj said:
By the way would it not be a nice idea to found a pistonheads political wing? 
A sort of think-tank for sensible people?
A sort of think-tank for sensible people?
he he... political wing of pistonheads... encouraging people to turn to bio fuels... he he... maybe you own a corn farm?
haha, I wish I would!
No, but seriously we have got to do something to stop these damn greenies who use these climate change issues to hide their communist roots. Before everyone will believe them and vote on them in various countries!
Ps. Unlike the guy out here I still believe in bioethanol it's great stuff and we can help ourselves (petrolheads) a lot by using it!
Hydrogen is not the way forward for powering vehicles. It's very expensive to hold the fuel in the vehicle as it has to be held at around 700 bar and adds about 110kg to the mass of the car. Furthermore, with most of our power coming from coal, we'd be buring coal to produce hydrogen. With all the inefficiencies between the lump (ok, handful of dust) of coal and the hydrogen in one's tank, the CO2 emmisons would be far higher than a bio-eth diesel-engined vehicle. It was stated earlier in this thread that politics were not an issue here but technology is. Well, how do all you taxpayers feel about subsidising farmers to grow stuff we don't need or grow nothing when they could be growing crops for fueling our cars and homes? That's pure politics. Although there may not be enough farming land available in Europe to turn every car/bus/lorry/home into a bio-fuel buring entity it would certainly go a long way to solving the problem.
Gassing Station | BMW General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff