0
   

0-60 < 6 seconds on hydrogen

 
 
Reply Sun 16 Jan, 2005 10:04 pm
http://biz.yahoo.com/bizwk/050114/b3917097mz018_1.html

At the January auto show in Los Angeles, U.S. car enthusiasts got their first look at the H2R, a race car from BMW. Building it took just 10 months, but the race it's designed to win will last for the next 10 years and beyond. It's the race to stem pollution from vehicles that burn gasoline and diesel fuels.

The H2R runs on hydrogen, the gas that lights the sun. All carmakers are scrambling to harness this clean fuel, driven by long-term worries about oil supplies as well as environmental harm. Washington and other governments share the concerns.

When it comes to hydrogen vehicles, most car companies are counting on little under-the-hood chemical refineries known as fuel cells. Trouble is, a fuel-cell system powerful enough for a car would add roughly $100,000 to sticker prices today. And then there's an even tougher problem: Where would drivers get the fuel? Fewer than 100 filling stations in the whole world now pump hydrogen. So it could be a couple of decades before fuel-cell cars become popular enough to make a dent either in pollution or in petroleum consumption.

BMW is taking a shortcut that addresses these issues, at least in part. Its H2R race car has an ordinary internal-combustion engine -- but it burns hydrogen. It's basically the same engine used in the carmaker's 760i luxury sedans. Running on hydrogen, it develops 286 horsepower and propels the H2R from from zero to 60 mph in under six seconds. And the car hit 187 mph last September at the Miramas racetrack in France. "The message we wanted to send is that you can have fun driving and be environmentally conscious at the same time," says Tom Purves, CEO of BMW of North America LLC.

As for the dearth of hydrogen filling stations, that ceases to be quite as big a problem. The same BMW engine can run on either hydrogen or gasoline, so simply adding a second fuel system can create a bi-fuel car. For daily trips around town, you would burn hydrogen to minimize urban pollution, says Anton Reisinger, manager of BMW's hydrogen program. "But out on the motorway, you could punch a button and run on gasoline." If a trip on hydrogen goes beyond that fuel's 215-mile range, he adds, the car would automatically switch over to gasoline, giving you up to 500 more miles.

The downside to burning hydrogen in a combustion engine is that it produces some pollution -- a small amount of nitrogen oxides (NOx). Fuel cells, on the other hand, spew out nothing more noxious than water. But BMW asserts that its out-the-tailpipe NOx levels will be well below even California's strict Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle standard.

Another consideration is that BMW bi-fuel cars will use liquid hydrogen, which must be kept very cold, below -423F. The car's onboard cryogenic system takes care of this automatically. But if the vehicle isn't started up for three or four days, says Reisinger, the liquid will begin to boil, and hydrogen gas will escape through a vent. That, however, sounds like a bigger worry than it actually is. Despite persistent myths, hydrogen is less dangerous than gasoline. It disperses quickly, so even when a container leaks explosions are next to impossible.

When will zippy bi-fuel BMW 7 Series sedans show up at dealers? It's not a sure bet, but BMW CEO Helmut Panke says he plans to put small numbers of them on the road, probably in Europe, within three years. A U.S. launch is more likely to happen around 2010.

By then, there could be multiple hydrogen filling stations serving major cities. The German government is sponsoring development of filling stations with their own hydrogen generators. That way, the lack of hydrogen pipelines and delivery trucks won't hold back the early transition away from gasoline and diesel to hydrogen cars -- and to the ultimate goal of pollution-free fuel cells.

The hydrogen comes from a familiar resource: water. Here's how it works. Water molecules are split into their hydrogen and oxygen constituents by electrolysis, or by shocking them with an electric current. Then, after the hydrogen makes a trip through a fuel cell, it recombines with oxygen in the air and reverts back to water. Refueling stations with electrolyzers have been built in Berlin, Hamburg, and Munich. And others have been installed as part of the Clean Urban Transport for Europe program in Amsterdam, Barcelona, Reykjavik, and Stockholm.

Hydrogen filling stations are also getting sprinkled across the U.S. Last April, the Energy Dept. said it would spend $190 million over five years if industry chipped in a similar sum to build hydrogen-and-gasoline stations and other infrastructure projects. Results weren't long in coming. In November, Shell Oil Co. (NYSE:RD - News) and General Motors Corp. (NYSE:GM - News) cut the ribbon on a new hydrogen station in Washington. It's just the first of a string of stations between the capital and New York, says outgoing Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham.

In California, Energy has awarded a contract for the construction of two dozen stations to a team led by Air Products & Chemicals Inc. (NYSE:APD - News) The company has already built 30 hydrogen stations around the globe and is the No. 1 producer of hydrogen. (The fertilizer and chemical industries consume millions of tons of the gas each year.)

Not to be upstaged, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger last spring called for a "hydrogen highway network" by 2010. He envisions at least 150 fuel stops at regular intervals along major highways. The California Fuel Cell Partnership, composed mainly of transportation agencies and carmakers, has so far built 13 hydrogen stations, and the group has more on the drawing board.

Biomass: The Ticket? Some of the upcoming fuel stations may also have water-electrolysis systems. However, while that technology makes sense in Europe, where gasoline is twice as expensive, it's not so attractive in the U.S. Electrolysis takes a lot of electricity. It costs at least $2.50 to produce a kilogram of hydrogen, which contains the same amount of energy as a gallon of gasoline. But the next generation of wind turbines and solar cells could supply cheaper electricity and make electrolysis more feasible for certain areas of the U.S.. Germany is already experimenting with wind-powered electrolysis at filling stations. Energy's goal for hydrogen from water is $2 per kilogram by 2010. In the U.S. heartland, biomass is the long-term ticket. This refers to leftover crop plants plus lumber and logging waste. Coaxing biomass to give up its hydrogen now costs more than $3 a kilogram. But researchers expect to shrink that to $2.60 around 2010. A few years later, hydrogen could compete with gasoline.

Total up all the potentials, and the U.S. has more than enough domestic resources to supply the energy it needs to replace all automotive fossil fuels with hydrogen -- using renewable resources only. So it would no longer be necessary to extract hydrogen from finite supplies of natural gas, which is the source of 90% of hydrogen today.

Once hydrogen is bountiful, says Raymond Freymann, BMW's managing director of research and technology, "we can go to a mono-fuel engine and not only extend the range (of the vehicle) but also improve the performance." So the H2R's 187 mph and 6-second acceleration may be just the start. But it seems like a good beginning.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,545 • Replies: 15
No top replies

 
Idaho
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 08:22 pm
Interesting, but the article didn't address the safety issues with hydrogen that would also cause the price to be higher than gasoline - Joe Shmo should definitely NOT be pumping his own hydrogen at a fueling station, so fuel stations would have to hire competent (higher paid) help. Not that I'm opposed to hydrogen-powered cars. We're just a long way away in terms of the infrastructure to support it.
0 Replies
 
Vengoropatubus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 09:27 pm
I think Joe Schmo should be pumping his own hydrogen as it would aid in natural selection.

P.S. POTATOES!!!
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 09:35 pm
Vengoropatubus wrote:
I think Joe Schmo should be pumping his own hydrogen as it would aid in natural selection.

P.S. POTATOES!!!


Shell has a self service hydrogen filling station in Iceland. The country is planning to go all hydrogen within the decade. As the country has abundant thermal energy, hydrogen mfg. with electrolysis is fairly cheap. It will not be so in the US.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 09:47 pm
Acquiunk wrote:


Shell has a self service hydrogen filling station in Iceland. The country is planning to go all hydrogen within the decade. As the country has abundant thermal energy, hydrogen mfg. with electrolysis is fairly cheap. It will not be so in the US.


It might still be cheaper than sending money to OPEC for them to build weapons with and then having to rebuild one of our cities every other year.
0 Replies
 
Adrian
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 09:49 pm
It's an interesting direction BMW have taken. They are about the only manufacturer not actively pursuing fuel cell technology. Publicly they say it's because they think IC engines provide better options. The rumours going around are that they don't have the money to do the research on their own, and they don't want to sign on with any of the collaborations happening because that would damage their reputation as a "technologically self sufficient" company.

Oh, and there is no problem with self serve pumps. It's not that much more complex than pumping LPG or CNG.
0 Replies
 
Instigate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 09:59 pm
I think BMWs direction is a good one. Fuel Cells are likely to be heavy and may not provide enough energy to haul themselves and 4 passengers up a mountain at an adequate speed.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 10:30 pm
Initial ways to produce H2 will be to strip h from alkanes and aromatics , so well still use oPEC for a while.
Elctrolysis of water takes energy also. What is thhe energy balance on that? no BS, links only , unless you can do the matth right here.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 11:32 pm
farmerman wrote:
Initial ways to produce H2 will be to strip h from alkanes and aromatics , so well still use oPEC for a while.
Elctrolysis of water takes energy also. What is thhe energy balance on that?



I'd assume that the energy balance of making hydrogen of coal and oil would be less than what you'd want.

Nonetheless we're probably going to have the new generations of nuclear reactors comiing online in the near future and all you'd be talking about in that sort of case would be using excess capacity in low usage times to produce hydrogen.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 11:33 pm
Instigate wrote:
I think BMWs direction is a good one. Fuel Cells are likely to be heavy and may not provide enough energy to haul themselves and 4 passengers up a mountain at an adequate speed.


One thing I've always admired about BMW: their cars are deliberately made to be mechanic friendly. They're easy to work on.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2005 07:47 am
I agreee that we will eventually grow up and design/ build a new generattion of nuclear plants. when, I dont know, the US is pretty unified against them.
The h thats produced in a nuke contains a lot of tritium which is radioactive. wed have to chill it and spin it

My point was that its cheaper to strip H from LNG than from electrolysis of water. The problem with LNG is that we dont have any capacity and the siting of new terminals is being fought because of environmental risks.

H is no more explosive than gasoline.

We used to hill climb an old BMW 2002. It was a great racer but the cam towers were flimsy
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2005 08:21 am
There's at least one other joker in the deck in the energy picture for the future and that is the question of deep drilling for natural gas and petroleum.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645

A number of petroleum geologists including C. Warren Hunt believe that petroleum and natural gas are not "fossil fuels" but basically part of the planets body chemistry, formed up in the deep parts of the earth, probably by the activity of anaerobic bacteria. The claim I've read is that in this country the channels to those deep areas are mostly broken up so that when an oil field plays out it plays out, but there are a few exceptions even here and, apparently, the channels in Saudi are still there and despite all the use of the Saudi fields over the last century, proven reserves there have quadrupled.

The claim is that if we simply knew how to dig deep enough, there'd be enough petroleum and NG to last us forever.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2005 12:17 pm
METHANE IS A NEOO-BIOGENIC PRODUCT. PEETROLEUM BY ABIOGENESIS AND NEO BIO IS NOT UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED BY "GEOLOGISTS" .

ONCE A FIELD IS EMPTIED, IT DOESNT FILL UP AGAIN. BUT METHANE IS BEING GENERATED BY SUBOCEAN BACTERIA AND FORMS 'CLATHRATES' WHICH ARE LIKE FROZEN METHANE CUBES. ITS FORMED BY ANAEROBES AND EMPLACED IN DEEP OCEAN FIELDS BY TRIPLE POINT THERMO REACTION. ITS A BITCH TO MINE, CAUSE IF ITS DISTURBED TOO MUCH, IT GOES CRAZY AND FIZZES LIKE A SHAKEN CHAMPAGNE BOTTLE. SHIPS HAVE SUNK BY TTHE UPWELLING OF THESE FIZZES FROM SUBOCEANIC SEISMIC ACTIVITY. tHHE BOUYANCY OF A SHIP IN A FOAM IS ZERO. tHATS MY THEORY ABOUT TH BERMUDA TRIANGLE.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2005 12:58 pm
Quote:
Another consideration is that BMW bi-fuel cars will use liquid hydrogen, which must be kept very cold, below -423F. The car's onboard cryogenic system takes care of this automatically. But if the vehicle isn't started up for three or four days, says Reisinger, the liquid will begin to boil, and hydrogen gas will escape through a vent. That, however, sounds like a bigger worry than it actually is. Despite persistent myths, hydrogen is less dangerous than gasoline. It disperses quickly, so even when a container leaks explosions are next to impossible.


Not to be too critical, but this is kind of a big deal. I don't drive my car for a few days and I come out to find I'm out of fuel? How do I fill it up when I can't get it to a station?

But in general, I like the idea of a bi-fuel car. I recall reading an article about a South American country (maybe Brazil or Argentina) that built bi-fuel cars in the late 70s/early 80s and was phasing them in again after a few years of their decline.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2005 02:47 pm
farmerman wrote:
. tHHE BOUYANCY OF A SHIP IN A FOAM IS ZERO. tHATS MY THEORY ABOUT TH BERMUDA TRIANGLE.



That's the first intelligent statement on that subject which I've ever read.
0 Replies
 
neil
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jan, 2005 10:43 pm
I'm impressed with the internal combustion duel fuel = liquid hydrogen/gasoline car. I will attempt the math here. Everyone willing to pay about one dollar per mile for a hydrogen compact car or two dollars per mile for a hydrogen mussel car, mid priced hydrogen luxury car or hydrogen SUV can have one with modest tax payer subsidies which are a big bargain if they can avert world war three over oil. Insurance and traffic fines are not included in the $1 to $2 per mile. The liquid hydrogen is significantly safer than the gas hydrogen, perhaps safer than gasoline in a wreck. Some of the premium paid by persons who want to be green will be in initial cost, some in extra repair cost and the green liquid hydrogen will cost about double per mile. initilly most of the hydrogen will come from fossil fuel, directly or indirectly. Most of the renewable hydrogen and other renewable energy will require 100% taxpayer subsidies until the infrastructure is in place plus modest subsidies long term. Subsidies could be the biggest item in the USA federal budget if green supporters are willing to put their money where their mouth is. Neil
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » 0-60 < 6 seconds on hydrogen
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.44 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 10:09:49