BimmerFest BMW Forum banner
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,346 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
on techtv show "fresh gear" i think this show is only once a week so every replay til the new one (dunno when) should have the report. hmm. new show today according to the site, so if fresh gear is on before 9pm wed again, check it out. kind of informative.... :dunno:
 

·
TMS
Joined
·
9,288 Posts
I see those cars and visualize another great hydrogen vehicle: the Hindenburg. Then there's the cost of production, transport and delivery, extremely short range...

Hydrogen is a good fuel why?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,346 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Cliff3 said:
I see those cars and visualize another great hydrogen vehicle: the Hindenburg. Then there's the cost of production, transport and delivery, extremely short range...

Hydrogen is a good fuel why?
it's clean. it's new. of course right now it's not practical. but it'll get better. the only exhaust is water. come on. gotta give it time to grow.

and i may be wrong, but isnt liquid hydrogen safer to transport on roads than a big ass tanker of oil/gasoline?
 

·
Rest in peace, Coach
Joined
·
9,106 Posts
///Mathew said:
Are there any other BMWs besides the E38 that are hydrogen powered
The E65 and the MINI.
 

·
Rest in peace, Coach
Joined
·
9,106 Posts
Cliff3 said:
I see those cars and visualize another great hydrogen vehicle: the Hindenburg. Then there's the cost of production, transport and delivery, extremely short range...

Hydrogen is a good fuel why?
What most people did NOT realize, it's not Hydrogen that caused the Hindenburg disaster, but the aluminum foil and the lacquer coating on the outside of the blimp. Hydrogen, when ignited, burns in a clear, transparent fire, and escapes RAPIDLY upwards in the atmosphere. What made the Hindenburg catch fire was it was flying in a thunderstorm, and it's a giant ALUMINUM conductor plus the fresh lacquer. When struck by lightning the lacquer caught on fire and burned the whole thing to the ground.

The biggest problem with Hydrogen fuel is the means to obtain liquid hydrogen. The largest reservoir of hydrogen gas is actually the 70% of water covering Earth's surface, but to extract it you have to burn fossil fuel or use nuclear power to generate enough electricity to run the electrolysis process to seperate the hydrogen from oxygen.

That and there isn't a suitable delivery infrastructure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,346 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
That and there isn't a suitable delivery infrastructure.
the report on fresh gear said ONE pump in munich, but bmw hopes to have pumps in every major euro capital by 2005. it'll be years and years before there is a delivery infrastructure (esp here).... but gotta try to do something....
 

·
TMS
Joined
·
9,288 Posts
eugeneDC/TX said:


it's clean. it's new. of course right now it's not practical. but it'll get better. the only exhaust is water. come on. gotta give it time to grow.

and i may be wrong, but isnt liquid hydrogen safer to transport on roads than a big ass tanker of oil/gasoline?
Burning it may be clean, but producing it requires energy. I haven't seen an analysis of that process, or at least I can't quote one this morning. An article in Bimmer (? I think) said the E38's only had a range of 200 miles, so they're hybrid gas/hydrogen vehicles because they couldn't make it from the only two hydrogen fueling facilities in the state: Port Hueneme and Sacramento. That's not too practical.
 

·
Into the dark ages
Joined
·
1,523 Posts
The HACK said:


The biggest problem with Hydrogen fuel is the means to obtain liquid hydrogen. The largest reservoir of hydrogen gas is actually the 70% of water covering Earth's surface, but to extract it you have to burn fossil fuel or use nuclear power to generate enough electricity to run the electrolysis process to seperate the hydrogen from oxygen.

That and there isn't a suitable delivery infrastructure.
and with that we are only moving the source of pollution up the energy food chain. so are we actually being more environmentally friendly? is the amount of energy (pollution created) required to split water the same or less compared to what is required to drill and refine oil and finally burning it.

if the oil companies are forward thinking enough they should capatialize on this hydrogen movement. they already have the infrastructure in place for delivery and distribution of fuel today...what is needed is just to retrofit everything for hydrogen when it reaches critical mass. to build up the delivery infrastructure is a huge cost and no one is really in a position to compete against the gas companies today.
 

·
Car Junkie
Joined
·
3,390 Posts
Well, if fossil fuels/other "dirty" natural resources are used for generating the hydrogen, at least that's just one source of pollution. That can be more easily monitored and controlled than the millions of tailpipes out there now. Still, are the emissions from generating hydrogen-based power equal to, greater than, or less than the emissions involved in traditional power?

Furthermore, let's think about the emissions from burning hydrogen. It's only water, right? What do you do with millions of cars dripping water (I would think significant amounts of it) by the minute? Is our current road/highway system able to accomodate the runoff? Maybe I'm just being an idiot, but I'm not sure that this topic has been addressed much.

I'm all for finding alternate fuels. We can't burn dino oil forever. And although I do believe that the "greenies" are way out in left field, we aren't doing ourselves any favors by throwing smog into the atmosphere - and we're definitely doing some amount of damage.
 

·
Rest in peace, Coach
Joined
·
9,106 Posts
Jetfire said:
...snip...

Furthermore, let's think about the emissions from burning hydrogen. It's only water, right? What do you do with millions of cars dripping water (I would think significant amounts of it) by the minute? Is our current road/highway system able to accomodate the runoff? Maybe I'm just being an idiot, but I'm not sure that this topic has been addressed much.

...snip...
The emissions are water vapors that escape into the atmosphere. The 750iH running at DesignWorks USA had two small puddles of water underneath the tail pipe after ~2 hours of operation.

No, it doesn't come pouring out of the exhaust system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,211 Posts
The HACK said:


What most people did NOT realize, it's not Hydrogen that caused the Hindenburg disaster, but the aluminum foil and the lacquer coating on the outside of the blimp. Hydrogen, when ignited, burns in a clear, transparent fire, and escapes RAPIDLY upwards in the atmosphere. What made the Hindenburg catch fire was it was flying in a thunderstorm, and it's a giant ALUMINUM conductor plus the fresh lacquer. When struck by lightning the lacquer caught on fire and burned the whole thing to the ground.

I remember seeing something on the history channel about how the aluminum composition applied to the airships had almost the same composition as what is used in the solid rocket boosters on the space shuttle. No wonder that puppie (Hindenburg) burned up in less than 60 seconds!!!

Unrelated, but history channel also said that because of "Nazi" propoganda, the German public was not told of the disaster of the Hindenburg till after WWII.
 

·
Car Junkie
Joined
·
3,390 Posts
The HACK said:


The emissions are water vapors that escape into the atmosphere. The 750iH running at DesignWorks USA had two small puddles of water underneath the tail pipe after ~2 hours of operation.

No, it doesn't come pouring out of the exhaust system.
Hehe, thanks for clearing that up. :) But again, now we have water vapors from all these cars (eventually). Would that do anything to increase average temperature, relative humidity, or anything else? How would that affect our environment?

Aside from riding a bicycle (which, I guess, actually causes humans to release more CO2 into the atmosphere :rolleyes: ), I wonder if we'll ever have true zero-emission vehicles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,346 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Cliff3 said:


Burning it may be clean, but producing it requires energy. I haven't seen an analysis of that process, or at least I can't quote one this morning. An article in Bimmer (? I think) said the E38's only had a range of 200 miles, so they're hybrid gas/hydrogen vehicles because they couldn't make it from the only two hydrogen fueling facilities in the state: Port Hueneme and Sacramento. That's not too practical.
yes producing it requires energy. yes the cars only have a range of 250 miles or so. but remember it is NEW technology that has to be further refined for public use. how many miles per tank did the first cars have? how much energy was required to make the first tank of gasoline from oil? jebus, it's not like this is in implementation for public stages. it's still new. it's been developed for these cars. of course right now (infrastructure system notwithstanding) it's impractical, but you have to see the benefits of this system with further refinement in the future. you are judging the hydrogen cars on an unfair scale. you have to allow for development. it's not like hydrogen has been a fuel in autos for 80 some odd years.
 

·
TMS
Joined
·
9,288 Posts
eugeneDC/TX said:


snipped

...you are judging the hydrogen cars on an unfair scale. you have to allow for development. it's not like hydrogen has been a fuel in autos for 80 some odd years.
Jeez, relax, man. I haven't "judged" anything. I'm offering up my casual observations of the technology in an Internet forum. In its present state, there are limitations to the technology. Maybe they'll overcome some of them, and maybe they won't. I'm not qualified to definitively answer that question. If anyone here is, then please PM me and I'll investigate the possibility of making some long term investments :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,346 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Cliff3 said:


Jeez, relax, man. I haven't "judged" anything. I'm offering up my casual observations of the technology in an Internet forum. In its present state, there are limitations to the technology. Maybe they'll overcome some of them, and maybe they won't. I'm not qualified to definitively answer that question. If anyone here is, then please PM me and I'll investigate the possibility of making some long term investments :D
haha. cool cool. dunno, sounded to me that you werent even ready to give it a chance to be feasible. and in this day and age i think every opportunity to make the world a little cleaner is a good thing. regardless.... lively debate never hurt anything or anyone (except apparently some clearcoat threads and such):thumbup:
 

·
Double Bimmers
Joined
·
1,176 Posts
Eugene, I am not sure I agree with your statments that we are not being fair to Hydrogen.

The technology is internal combustion and that is now a highly developed process. Changing the fuel should require just *minor* tweaking. The fuel is already pure hydrogen mixed with oxygen from the air. They may enhance the fuel, but then it would now longer be hydrogen anymore. I cannot say how inefficient the BMW H-powered engines are, but I doubt we will see a revolution from H-powered technology, not to say it will not become popular for other reasons such as the environment.

On the other hand, fuel cell technology has been around a while, at least since the Apollo Program, but now it is becoming affordable as a possibility for motor vehicles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,346 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
CD-55 said:
Eugene, I am not sure I agree with your statments that we are not being fair to Hydrogen.

The technology is internal combustion and that is now a highly developed process. Changing the fuel should require just *minor* tweaking. The fuel is already pure hydrogen mixed with oxygen from the air. They may enhance the fuel, but then it would now longer be hydrogen anymore. I cannot say how inefficient the BMW H-powered engines are, but I doubt we will see a revolution from H-powered technology, not to say it will not become popular for other reasons such as the environment.

On the other hand, fuel cell technology has been around a while, at least since the Apollo Program, but now it is becoming affordable as a possibility for motor vehicles.
all good points, i just think that minor tweaks always take the longest. and i think h-powered cars are while not the wave of the future def a step in the right direction. and that while tweaking is all that remains, tweaking needs to be done adn that will take awhile. i just felt the points of it taking energy to create the fuel and the impracticality of distance between fueling were a little shortsighted. haha. i think this is the first "debate" i've gotten into on this forum. good times good times. haha. :thumbup:
 

·
Double Bimmers
Joined
·
1,176 Posts
sorry, I did not notice you are already in the middle of a debate:)

now you have been double teamed on your first debate... hehe;)
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top