BMW to start serial output of hydrogen-powered car

[deadparrot]

MUNICH, Germany (Reuters) - BMW (BMWG.DE) intends to start serial production of a hydrogen-burning 7-Series executive car within two years, the world's largest premium automaker said on Tuesday.

"We will present such a vehicle to the public in less than two years," a spokesman said, confirming media reports. BMW had said last year its hydrogen-fuelled cars, which emit only water vapour, would make their debut in 2010.

BMW intends to build a few hundred such cars at first. They will be able to switch between burning standard gasoline and hydrogen so that drivers will not be left stranded while the infrastructure to deliver hydrogen is built up.

The space that two fuel tanks take up means only the 7-Series will offer the hydrogen package at first. BMW's long-term goal is to offer hydrogen motors in all its cars.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/autos_bmw_hydrogen_dc

[madmark]

1. Bush had to throw a billion at his cronys to research the issue and gave

it a 25 year horizon; BMW's putting the thing out in two years with no crony money. This is one time that foriegn competition is doing us a favor (of course if they build some of these at their South Carolina plant it wouldn't even be all that foriegn)

[Up2Late]

3. I'm fairly sure that Toyota is already testing Hydrogen Powered cars...

...or is about to, out in California.

It just amazes me how many here (at DU) are still so ignorant about this subject, and how far these "Oilmen" have put us behind the rest of the developed world.

Another amazing part of the story is that almost all of the Corporations that are way ahead of any U.S. company, are in CANADA!

Hell, The U.S. Army is already testing Hydrogen Powered vehicles too.


Here's a few links: <http://www.parsintl.com/pdf/10323-N-Hydrogenics.pdf>

<http://www.hydrogenics.com/>

<http://www.hydrogenics.com/ir_news.asp>

<http://4hydrogen.com/>

<http://www.tfl.gov.uk/buses/fuel-cell-buses.asp>

[BR_Parkway]

2. First we need to find out is them kids learning. No Child Left Behind

bullshit on you once again George. Keep em dumb so they go play tin soldier to prop up your little ego who needs to be CinC WarTime President. Keep em addicted to the oil, so Daddy and all his friends will always have enough cash to bail you out of your latest fuckup.

[riona]

4. Can't wait

i just know it'll be in my price range - not

[Trillo]

5. Almost any internal combustion engine can run on a gas

instead of a liquid. Some vehicles have been converted to natural gas, this started long ago, and there are some stations already selling natural gas at the pump. Natural gas is much preferred to propane because of its superior octane rating. Hydrogen has an impressive octane rating, I believe more impressive than natural gas. IIRC, it's about 140.

Small economy vehicles with small engines are already in production, it seems it would be less expensive for a manufacturer to modify the fuel delivery system than to design a completely new technology.

Ford had a Focus converted to hydrogen.

As I understand the fuel, because two hydrogen atoms meet one oxygen atom, the largest problem is the amount of hydrogen that must be carried on board. By way of comparison, gasoline mixes with oxygen in a ratio of about 12 (oxygen) to 1 (gasoline). Hydrogen is 1 (oxygen) to 2 (hydrogen): H2O. To traverse any distance, a lot of hydrogen has to be carried in tanks when compared to gasoline, so the efficiency of the engine is critical.

The only reason I've been able to concieve that we don't already have hydrogen powered cars is lack of hydrogen at stations and generalized foot dragging by industry to use what they already sell us. It's probably cheapest to drill for crude oil.

My main point is that it should be cheaper for industry to convert existing engines to hydrogen, than to devise an entirely new technology. Once filling infrastructure is in place, there's nothing to stop a more 'efficient' automotive technology from evolving from it, such as fuel cells, hybrids, or something else.

[riona]

6. oops, i meant the brand of car

[Mithras61]

7. There's other issues with hydrogen...

The two that leap to mind are that hydrogen migrates through most container types (it's a VERY small atom!) and that hydrogen tends to make the storage tanks fragile (relatively speaking, of course).

I've HEARD that making hydrogen (in a format that is useable by IC engines, that is) is fairly energy intensive process, but I've also heard that the ammount of energy required can be generated by a fairly small solar array, so I don't know if this fits the "problem" category or not. Perhaps some of the more knowledgeable here could illuminate this... (please?)

[Trillo]

11. Here's one tank designed a few years back,

http://www.llnl.gov/str/June03/Aceves.html
It's bulletproof when new.

Here's an old article about the hydrogen powered Focus:
http://www.autointell.com/News-2001/August-2001/August-2001-4/August-22-01-p8.htm

Here's something I wrote long ago (may be outdated) I found in a document of mine:

http://www.bmwworld.com/models/750hl.htm
"The hydrogen engine offers excellent torque and acceleration, while the specially insulated 140-liter tank for the liquid hydrogen provides a range of 400 kilometers."

140/3.79 liters per gallon=36.9393 gallons
400 kilometers/36.93 gallons=10.83 KM per gallon
10.83 KM / 1.61 KMper mile=6.72

BMWs vehicle appears to get 6.72 miles per "gallon of hydrogen." And it will also run on gasoline.

Here's another old document of mine:

http://www.focaljet.com/allsite/content/h2rv.html :

"H2RV is proven technology - it could be put into production," said Dr. Gerhard Schmidt, vice president, Ford Research and Advanced Engineering. "What we are lacking are the other two legs of this three-legged stool - a fueling infrastructure for hydrogen, and uniform laws and regulations that will allow its use across the nation."

It appears that "innovation" is stymied by "laws and regulations" that appear to disallow the use of hydrogen powered cars across the whole nation.

So there are advocates and lobbyists with an axe to grind.

Just food for thought, hope it helps.

[Mithras61]

12. Interesting links...

The third one implies that solar cells are quite capable of providing the needed enegry to create the hydrogen.

I like the storage tank in the first link. I think you'd have a problem if the tank was punctured while in the fire, though...

From the caption of a series of photos...

Livermore’s insulated cryogenic hydrogen tank has undergone 27 different tests to demonstrate its safety and reliability. (a) The tank after being shot with a .30-caliber armor-piercing bullet. The bullet punctured the tank without fragmenting it. (b) The Livermore tank during the bonfire test and (c) following the test. The tank was charred but retained its structural integrity, a key safety consideration.

Hey! They didn't test what happens if you shoot it with a .30-caliber armor-piercing bullet while it's in the bonfire! :silly:


But honestly, if they can store it and create it efficiently, the only real obstacle remaining is the infrastructure, which will likely follow demand (if you owned the local Qwik-E-Mart, wouldn't you offer hydrogen as well as gasoline if that's what your customers wanted?).

[DamnYank]

23. H2 is an energy carrier vs. an energy source

I've read in a number of alternative energy books that H2 is an energy carrie and not an energy source. It apparently takes so much energy to produce H2 using current technology that it takes away from the gains.

I'd like to hear an engineer's explanation. Does it take more energy to produce hydrogen from sea water than it takes to distill gasoline from crude oil? My rusty memories of basic chemistry say yes but what are the specifics?

[Tab]

9. Not to mention the volatility

:nuke:

[Mithras61]

10. But you already mentioned it! :D

Actually, gasoline is pretty volatile, too. It's possible to engineer holding tanks that will resist rupture/puncture, etc. (they use 'em in race cars...). It's much more significant that hydrogen atoms/molecules will pass through almost everything (no "long term" storage), and that they make metals fragile (how'd you like to "shatter" your tank a ways away from home? :D).

[Up2Late]

18. Yes, Gasoline is actually much more dangerous and volatile ...

...when compared to Hydrogen. Hydrogen burns, Gasoline fumes explode.

From: Twenty Hydrogen Myths #E03-05
AMORY B. LOVINS, CEO, ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE
20 June 2003, corrected and updated 17 February 2005

<http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E03-05_20HydrogenMyths.pdf> from Page 9

...Myth #2. Hydrogen is too dangerous, explosive, or “volatile” for common use as a fuel.

The hydrogen industry has an enviable safety record spanning more than a half-century. Any fuel
is hazardous and needs due care, but hydrogen’s hazards are different and generally more tractable
than those of hydrocarbon fuels. It’s extremely buoyant — 14.4 times lighter than air (natural
gas is only 1.7 times lighter than air). Hydrogen is four times more diffusive than natural gas
or 12 times more than gasoline fumes, so leaking hydrogen rapidly disperses up and away from
its source. If ignited, hydrogen burns rapidly with a nonluminous flame that can’t readily scorch
you at a distance, emitting only one-tenth the radiant heat of a hydrocarbon fire and burning 7%
cooler than gasoline. Although firefighters dislike hydrogen’s clear flame because they need a
viewing device to see it in daylight, victims generally aren’t burned unless they’re actually in the
flame, nor are they choked by smoke.

Hydrogen mixtures in air are hard to explode, requiring a constrained volume of elongated shape.
In high-school chemistry experiments, hydrogen detonates with a “pop” when lit in a test tube,
but if it were in free air rather than a long cylindrical enclosure, it wouldn’t detonate at all. Explosion
requires at least twice as rich a mixture of hydrogen as of natural gas, though hydrogen’s
explosive potential continues to a fourfold higher upper limit. Hydrogen does ignite easily,
needing 14 times less energy than natural gas, but that’s of dubious relevance because even natural
gas can be ignited by a static-electricity spark. Unlike natural gas, however, leaking hydrogen
encountering an ignition source is far likelier to burn than to explode, even inside a building,
because it burns at concentrations far below its lower explosive limit. Ignition also requires a
fourfold higher minimum concentration of hydrogen than of gasoline vapor. In short, in the vast
majority of cases, leaking hydrogen, if lit, will burn but not explode. And in the rare cases where
it might explode, its theoretical explosive power per unit volume of gas is 22 times weaker than
that of gasoline vapor. It is not, as has been claimed, “essentially a liquid or gaseous form of dynamite.”

(more at links below)

<http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E03-05_20HydrogenMyths.pdf>

<http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid171.php#20H2Myths>

<http://www.rmi.org/>

[daleo]

8. Hydrogen is difficult to contain in a tank

The small molecules want to leak out. I wonder what they are doing about that.

[951-Riverside]

13. What happens when someone gets into a bad accident

and one of these hydrogen tanks are punchered?

Will it create a large explosion?

[Mithras61]

14. Check this out...

http://www.llnl.gov/str/June03/Aceves.html

Fire-proof, bullet resistant and it actually keeps the H2 in...

[Trillo]

17. H might be safer than gasoline in a crash if it does get released.

bolding added by me

Hydrogen vs. Gasoline
Hydrogen has some attributes that make it safer than gasoline in a car accident. For example, any hydrogen escaping from a crashed car rises and disperses faster than any other gas, moving away from crash victims and reducing the chances of further injury from fire. Gasoline fumes, on the other hand, are heavier than air, and can actually linger in the vicinity of a crash, putting any trapped survivors in jeopardy for long periods of time. The lower flammability limit of gasoline is four times less than that of hydrogen, further increasing the risks of a fire in a gasoline crash scenario compared to an equivalent hydrogen car crash.
http://www.h2gen.com/energy_safety.htm

[Up2Late]

19. In a word, No.

See the links and what I posted above at post #18

[truthisfreedom]

15. both of my vehicles are BMWs. i LOVE them. 8^) what a great company!

woohoo!

[ShortnFiery]

16. If you have the $$$ to afford them ...

Oh darn, perhaps I can buy a small BMW .... Motorcycle! LOL

I hope some company known to be affordable to us average working Joe/Jane Americans comes out with the same.

Both my cars are Hondas. How bout' them or Toyota?

[3waygeek]

20. Well, finally...

I first read about the 750hl 3-4 years ago, back when I had a 740i. Great car, but a bit pricey to maintain once it got out of warranty.

[megatherium]

21. It's an internal combustion engine, not a fuel cell.

A good solution to the problem of building a hydrogen-powered car, given that fuel cells are still expensive. But I don't know how efficient a hydrogen-powered internal combustion engine is, compared to a fuel cell.

[goforit]

22. Hats off to BMW!!!

[Ramsey]

24. Put it in the Z!!

I want my next Z to be hydrogen-fueled!!

Good job, BMW!

[Blue_Tires]

25. wow....

i wonder what's taking GM so long.....I know they have been working hard on this as well, and spent a LOT of $$$$ in R+D---and even their timeline is a 'maybe' in the next decade