What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
90 Comments
- bshep, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16The point is that generating electricity in a large scale is more efficient and less polluting than in smaller scales. So producing hydrogen by using electricity from the grid is more environmentally friendly than producing it a home or on demand inside the car. Also you can use nuclear power to generate the hydrogen, but as you said coal is more common.
So even though by using hydrogen you are indirectly using fossil fuels, the impact on the environment is lessened. - Muyoso, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Yea, thats smart, lets grow all of the worlds fuel on farms. No one needs the farms for anything else or anything. And everyone knows that weather is totally stable and will never change.
- chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15it's all gotta start somewhere. Unless you a car that runs on water they is always going to be some adjustments.
- Raptor7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Consider that this is BMW, they have more money than we need to know. Let them spend it on whatever alternative fuel design they want. It's better than turning a blind eye and continuing to profit solely off of gasoline engines. Whether or not Hydrogen powered engines is the future, research and information will be discovered that can possibly be applied in other fields where Hydrogen power is feasable (not in the hands of the explosion causing public) or towards future development. At least theyre doing something, props to them for that. And its nice to see its more than just them talking about doing it, as it looks like they sunk some real time and effort into it,
- daofma, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12The first sentence is exactly what BMW is thinking. Nobody's going to switch fully to hydrogen, so they're making a car that can run on either hydrogen or gasoline, so that the switch can be made.
- baldr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15yes, the hydrogen would probably explode, but if you haven't noticed: gasoline explodes too. Wait a second, maybe all combustible fuels explode?!?
- Muyoso, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Somehow I believe they made the same arguement before switching from steam powered vehicles to gasoline.
- jonesin, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14That's great, but don't go expecting to see these for sale next year or something. They don't have a fuel tank to put the hydrogen in that's anywhere near consumer-ready.
- tmach, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Ethanol is a VERY short-term measure at best. First, because it's much less efficient to burn ethanol than gasoline (it requires much more energy to burn ethanol than you actually get out of it, and that isn't counting the energy it takes to convert the corn into fuel in the first place). Second, and most important, there's no way to make enough of it to replace gasoline. It takes about 11 acres of farmland to provide enough ethanol for one car for one year. Multiply that by how many cars we have in the world, and there just isn't enough farmland.
Biomass energy would be really good for other things like heating buildings. It just doesn't make a very practical liquid fuel.
http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/Ethanol/index.html - Doubledown, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10If we can protect a little black box in an airplane crash, I think we can figure out a way to protect a hydrogen tank in a car
- JoeKickass, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I should hope they do. The technology is already out there:
Store in gas form? Huge amount to space required, dangerous.
Store in Liquid form? Less space but now it's cryogenic. Dangerous^2
They can now store it chemically bonded to metal hydrides. You fill the tank the same way you would with gas, and since it's bonded on a molecular level, good storage densities are achievable. When the car needs to run off hydrogen, electric heaters or heat from the exhaust is all that's needed to release the hydrogen a little bit at a time, but enough to run a car off of. Also, when it is chemically bonded it is not combustible. If you fired a bullet at it the most it would do is smolder from the residual heat letting hydrogen escape. - h00ligan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11they're only really a "luxury" manufacturer in the US, there are plenty of entry level bimmers in europe.
- anonydigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@Whitey04
(Adding to bshep because I was late:)
Good point, but also,
The point is that it is so much more efficient to generate electricity from fossil fuels in a factory, than it is to burn them in a car, that even counting the loss it would still be a net gain.
The other point is that hydrogen has a higher energy density than conventional batteries, so it would be possible to store and use energy from electrical sources that could not have been used to date because of limitiations of batteries. - Bentopia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Hydrogen is so light that it goes straight up once released. So as long as the tank isn't directly below the people, they'd be fine. I've seen a video where they intentionally crashed a hydrogen car. It looked like they had a blowtorch with a two foot flame sticking up out of the back.
Better than gas blowing up and getting everywhere if you ask me. - bmobile, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5tmach: (not a car person so bear with me) actually, if i've read correctly, the reason that ethanol currently provides less energy than gasoline is because most all of the vehicles produced are gasoline OR ethanol. this means they use the lowest common denominator when doing piston timings and such. therefore the higher octane rating of ethanol (100+ octane) is wasted because the engine assumes a minimum of gasoline (85 octane). when we have ethanol-only vehicles, they will be able to use the higher octane to their advantage.
- bradleyland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5bmobile, it all comes down to BTU per liter. Ethanol simply does not contain as much energy as gasoline.
The real shame about ethanol is that it's being used as an excuse to further subsidize American farmers. There are more energy and space efficient ways to produce ethanol than using corn, but that doesn't serve the right interests. - aggies11, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6With the Car Density in my City at Rush Hour, it could probably lead into a self sustaining Fusion Reaction! ;)
Aggies - runnerman628, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6oh and for the record ethanol isnt that much cheaper than gasoline currently is
- meyerj88, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5BMW isn't the only one working on this either. About a year ago Ford introduced their Super Chief concept truck. It can burn gasoline, hydrogen, or E85 fuel. Granted it's a huge truck, but the technology is there to put it into smaller vehicles. Glad to see more automakers working on hydrogen.
http://media.ford.com/newsroom/release_display.cfm?release=22295 - neozeed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6With that kind of logic, you'd just as soon say that global warming is happening.
- robdon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Toyota is slackin.... hard to believe that a German luxury manufacturer would be the first to put a practical, driveable hydrogen car on the streets
- Whitey04, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Your car can't run on water. It takes more energy to generate hydrogen from water than to combust it (which turns it back into water). This is what makes hydrogen cars pointless: unless an economical source of hydrogen (other than electrolysis) is found hydrogen comes from coal (which is what powers most of the electric grid).
- moonshn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@ Whitey04
If the current trend towards nuclear power continues we can than produce hydrogen to our hearts content without it "coming from coal", and without any of the harmful emissions of fossil fuels - sdether, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@KnightMareInc
Aside from wanting to work on more than one possible alternative to gasoline, using electric cars still begs the question of whether that energy came from a sustainable source. I mean it's not like electricity is a magic, everlasting source with no environmental impact.
At least Hydrogen will never run out. Yes, I am ignoring the problem whether we can extract hydrogen in a sustainable and economical way. But where is fun if there isn't some future crisis waiting to blindside us. - baalzebub, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7i drink mine :)
- Bananas21ca, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Yes cause ventilating your house with pure O2 is a good idea. Would make a small fire on your stove burn out of control and next thing you know your entire house is up in flames. Not to mention that hydrogen tank in your garage thats about to go too.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Wankels are not the answer. They are not as rugged as a piston motor and they tend to burn a lot of oil because of how the lubrication of the sidewalls work (although they don't burn oil like a two stroke, at least a non-Orbital two stroke).
Also note that the eccentricity in the shaft on a Wankel means it also oscillates masses too. The good news is that although a rotor has more mass than a pistor, a "stroke" is relatively short and each rotor acts like 3 pistons at once. - DarthPoo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Where do you think they get the hydrogen from? Could it be, yes the water already in our environment! Thermodynamics, read about them.
- baalzebub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3no emissions is such as mis-leading term, the exhaust will emit something when it burns hydrogen, it may not be emitting any pollutants but it will be emitting something (water & nitrogen? - both harmless)
whoever finds a cheap & practical enough method to crack water in to its two elements (hydrogen & oxygen) will have a pretty sweet monopoly if they get the method patentend before the oil companies get it... - Mojave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Ugh, something that only a few of the commenters here understand is that it takes electricity to generate Hydrogen. And right now, that electricy is being generated from burning fossil fuels. So Hydrogen is NOT a clean energy source. In addition, transporting the Hydrogen all around the country and world will require more energy to be used, thereby reducing its efficiency. Finally, the infrastructure costs to having Hydrogen filling stations everywhere is going to be enormous. Hydrogen makes no sense for cars.
Check out the story here and the highly informed comments if you really want to understand why Hydrogen is not the answer. http://ergosphere.blogspot.com/2006/08/europe-passes-death-sentence-on-hype.html
What is the answer? Electricity. It can be generated anywhere by any means (solar, wind, nuclear, coal (for now)), there's already a huge infrastructure in place and we can "fill up" our electric cars at home, at work or in any hotel (for example, for cross country driving). - carve, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5BMW has been working on hydrogen combustion engines since the early 90s
- realyst, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4O2 is toxic in large quantities. You would definitely want to dilute it in Nitrogen.
So probably the best thing to do would be to just let it out of the house. - mooninite, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I don't see how this article made the front page. Everyone on digg hates BMW. They arn't "luxury" cars directly either. They are meant for an all around "Ultimate Driving Machine." From 300HP motors to leather heated seats to automatic parallel parking, BMW is more than a luxury car. Maybe if you guys would handle your money better you could afford one, too. BMW and Mercedes make all the technology in your Kia Rio 10 years in advance. I love my beemer. Gasoline will be hard to leave since we're all used to that roar of a combustion engine. There's nothing quite like it.
- brianbennett, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Hopefully we'll see a much more efficient electrolysis process in the future that would make burning hydrogen even more appealing.
- gabster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2For what it takes to create hydrogen, I am not convinced this is an ecologic solution for the car market. But I guess this the best we can do.
- moonshn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ mooninite
That's the beauty of the hydrogen combustion engine, you still have all the power of an internal combustion engine, simply minus the exhaust gasses (not counting H2O) - DWatch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think the vast majority of the digg users already know that hydrogen isn't magically created from thin air, and that it requires some form of electricity to produce it (a lot for electrolysis, not as much for converting a hydrocarbon), however, since you say that electricity can be made just about anywhere and the infrastructure already exists, doesn't it stand to reason that anywhere you have electricity and water nearby, you can make hydrogen? Hydrogen does not have to be transported across the country in big pipelines or in tanker trucks like gasoline, it can be made literally anywhere on the planet that electricity and water are in close proximity. We don't have to create an entire transportation infrastructure specifically for hydrogen. Its a locally produced product that can theoretically be made at every gas station on the fly as the cars need it. Besides, we have already created a huge infrastructure for oil and gas products, what makes you think the same can't be done for H2? Its just a matter of economics, not technology. As far as the cost of creating hydrogen filling stations, you assume its going to be government sponsored. I seriously doubt that the government would subsidize h2 stations past a few pilot trials. Once the economics are in place (cost of the equipment, depreciation, cost in electricity per h2 volume) then the businesses will take over and charge the consumer accordingly. It won't be super cheap like gas used to be, but we are not talking about making a cheap fuel to get back the old glory days of early Americana, we are talking about making a replacement fuel that wont kill our planet in the long run.
I'm all for electric cars, if they could be made with the same benefits that gas powered or h2 powered cars have. The fact is, current battery power has serious disadvantages versus a gas or h2 powered car, such as the weight of the batteries, short range, long long long recharge time, limited lifespan, recycling issues, and high initial cost. If you could make a battery that eliminates these disadvantages, then the electric car would be the clear winner. There have been some scientific advances, such as the nano tube based capacitor banks and other lightweight, fast charging battery breakthroughs, but they are still in the development stages. Engines that can burn H2 exist now.
The statement you make that 'hydrogen doesn't make sense for cars' also applies to battery powered cars and ethanol production. No solution is perfect, yet. H2 powered cars will have a role to play if they can reduce the power required to crack the water molecule, and make a better storage solution. Right now its every bit as promising as battery powered cars. It deserves to be investigated, researched, and experimented with.
Several decades from now we might see a future where gasoline is outlawed or abandoned, yet you still have a lot of different options at the filling station; electric for short range local traffic, H2 for the consumer who needs more range, bio diesel for semi trucks and other large vehicles, and ethanol for those who want to keep the old gas internal combustion cars running (after some engine modifications). Crude oil production might be relegated to producing plastics, jet fuel, and lubricants. There might not be a single perfect solution for everyone. Economics and research will dictate the direction we take, not the opinion of one blog you found that agrees with your narrow view of the future. - porkstacker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Perhaps instead a better idea would be for BMW to get rid of Chris Bangle, as he is uglifying otherwise nice-looking cars--the 2007 M3 is going to look as butt-ugly as the 330 series, 5-series, M6, and 7-series. But, people keep on buying them, ugly or not. If it’s ugly one is after, why not just buy a Pontanic Asscrack? (featured here: http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/list/top10/103630/article.html )
- tfogarty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Even though this may not be the be all end all solution it is encouraging to see a large company that is very much in the public eye pursuing alternate forms of energy consumption. Small strokes fell great oaks, or so the saying goes. Eventually, through increases in demand and a lessening of supply, the prices will dictate that such alternate choices are no longer "neat" but key features in purchasing decisions. That, my friends, is exactly when the invisible hand (i.e. profit motive) will point consumer's wealth in such a direction as to give the companies that are already onboard with the forthcoming change the opportunity to excel and therefore reap dividends from their production system.
Cheers, and here's to hoping the change occurs before needs dictate. - AkiraXXX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I applaud the research done by BMW and others regarding hydrogen-powered vehicles. But, as others have stated, it is not now, nor is it likely to ever be a solution. And, at this point I am not sure it will even be a valuable contribution. My hope is that the research done by various companies will yield more efficient means of generating hydrogen than are currently available. I prefer that we focus on local generation of as many resources (energy, food, consumer goods, etc.) as possible. This will reduced some energy costs by reducing the cost and risks of transporting hydrogen a great distance. When petroleum was in less demand, this wasn't an issue. Now, with China and India stepping up to the bar for their drinks from the oil well, this is less feasible. My great concern is the energy lost in converting water to hydrogen. It seems prudent to create more effective battery technology and more cost-effective solar and wind technology. This will allow everyone to generate a portion of their own power and reduce our need for foreign oil. It will also reduce pollution in the long-term. It will also create a new economic sector that could be exported and decrease our net-import deficit. Still, I would like to see advances in hydrogen fuel cell technology that could be applied to other areas where batteries/solar/wind wouldn't be the best solution. Combining the various technologies and resources we have, even when they seem small, can yield great benefits (even benefits that are not obvious).
- simoncoul, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5A company in Toronto was producing hydrogen cars and fills it using a wind turbine station to produce the hydrogen fuel. The station can produce enough hydrogen to power 10 cars for a day. That being said, hydrogen is never going to take off, research should be put into battery tech for electric cars.
- Jarasmen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I'm not giving my ethanol to anyone.
- clip9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Good lord you people are dumb. Today we burn hydrocarbons. Gas is chains of hydrocarbons. When you burn a hydrocarbon you release CO2 and H2O. So by burning gas you are moving water from the oil well to the cities just as fast as you would move water with a hydrogen car. If the hydrogen economy is good remains to be seen however as it stands now the inefficiencies in converting from electricity to hydrogen is huge hurdle.
- Neumahn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I did add something. I was the first one here to point out it was not a clean technology. Perhaps if you read more than the first sentence before you leave arrogant comments you might learn something.
- gwinerreniwg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@tmach - there isn't enough land mass in certain nations, however, the US has more than enough landmass to support a completely self-sufficient biofuel program. While it's true it's a less efficient fuel, we can absolutely make up for the difference in agricultural production. My greater concern is the effect on the local ecosystems when large areas are dedicated to hybridized genetically engineered bio-fuel corn and switchgrasses. Farmers will be under pressure to produce crops every year instead of rotating crops. This will have some unintended consequences of fertilizer pollution and increases resistant insects.
Brazil has become energy independent on biofuel, and the US can too. Just because the US can though, does it mean it should? I wonder. - SuckMyDigg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3You must be from iowa...
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2BMW had the first hydrogen engine prototypes back in the late 80s. I wonder what took them so long? Not enough demand I guess. But recent oil prices and the War On Terra sure woke a few people up. This technology really could have been deployed much earlier.
- DWatch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Every time there is a hydrogen article on digg some idiot comes on and screams 'its not a power source its an energy carrier... yada yada yada....'. Well, no *****, Sherlock. Everyone already knew that, except for you, I guess. Actually, anyone who has had a high school physics class or has read even one single hydrogen article knew this already. Stop stating the obvious, and maybe next time try to add something to the conversation.
- MichaelW2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@ mooninnite
You idiot - its Bimmer.
You say you own a BMW but you don't have enough sense to know it's Bimmer?
Go drive a Kia. -
Show 51 - 92 of 92 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is