BMW Shows Off World's Fastest Hydrogen Car

loid_void writes "According to Reuters and others BMW unveiled the world's fastest hydrogen-powered car at the Paris auto show on Wednesday, dubbed the H2R, capable of exceeding 300 kilometers (185 miles) per hour. The are also working with Shell on hydrogen dispensing stations. '"Our drive toward the future is called hydrogen," BMW management board member Burkhard Goeschel said before the tarp slowly slipped off the teardrop-shaped body of the sleek race car.' All I want to know, does it come with an iPod hookup?"

Comments

Pollution

[samtihen]

What I find moderately interesting about the hydrogen fuel idea is that, despite the fact that it emits only steam as a byproduct, it still takes a lot of energy to produce hydrogen. As a result, it pretty much will cause pollution regardless.

Don't get me wrong, this still reduces our dependence on oil, and will be a huge help to city pollution, but I think we need to quickly figure out some way to make hydrogen cheaply and cleanly. Maybe nuclear powered hydrogen production plants? Just thinking...

Re:Pollution

[Phanatic1a]

Actually hydro power is pretty efecient if you have the resources.

It's also devastating to downstream ecologies. A major hydroelectric project like Three Gorges is an ecological disaster.

Without developing a breeder reactor the uranium will run out as well.

Okay, so develop a breeder reactor. Running in a breeder reactor, uranium would be economical at costs of $1,000 per pound (1983 dollars), and would contribute 0.03 cents per kilowatt-hour to the cost of electricity.

Or, don't develop a breeder reactor. Uranium could be extracted from seawater for far less than that, around $200-400 per pound, and there's enough of it currently in the oceans to supply the planet's current electrical needs for millions of years. Hell, if we extract 16,000 tons of it per year, that's enough to supply twice the world's energy consumption, 25 times its electrical demand.

misses the point of hydrogen

[uujjj]

A hydrogen car that uses an ICE misses the whole point. It doesn't improve efficiency much, given that it is still limited by the thermal efficiency of a heat engine. Moreover, although burning hydrogen doesn't produce carbon emmisions, producing hydrogen does. Finally, the higher combustion temperature increases the formation of NOx pollutants.

The reason for all the effort to create a new hydrogen fueling infrastructure is to take advantage of fuel cells/electric motors. A car with a hydrogen burning ICE is just an ordinary car that you can't refill at a gas station.

Re:Isn't -

[caseih]

Yes it is true that the Hindenberg had rocket fuel -coated skin, which did burn rapidly and transmitted the fire throughout the structure. However, recent research has hypothesized that the skin played little role in actually starting the fire. The probable cause is actually leaking fuel from the engine fuel tanks, due to previous damage caused when they were experimenting with catching and releasing airplanes from the underside. This leaked fuel would have got into the lower areas, near the hydrogen gas. Once the fire started, it spread rapidly through the damaged areas and eventually ignited the hydrogen bags. Apparently if you examine the footage, you'll find the fire starting out on the bottom of the ship.

Apparently the new Zepplin airship is due to be launched in the next few years. While it is helium-based (to satisfy the paranoid public), it is still three-times the size of the original Hindenberg. Should be a cool ship to see. If they could find a way to still use some hydrogen, though, they'd be able carry much more cargo, although the specs without hydrogen still allow it to carry 3 times the cargo of a 747.

I wouldn't worry a bit about hydrogen in cars for day to day driving. However, paramedics and accident response teams will have to be aware of procedures for dealing with these things, just like with electric cars.

Re:Once again, the Germans beat us.

[YrWrstNtmr]

Right

Ford
General Motors
Shelby Cobra
[google, of course, is your friend]

And if you think there is a 'real' difference between, say, Ford and Toyota, or Chrysler and Mercedes, or GM and SAAB....You're sadly mistaken. They share designs all over. The car companies are the epitome of 'multinational'. And it's wise to let the smaller companies pioneer a new concept. They can do it faster. And if it pans out....embrace and extend.

Re:hydrogen dissipates faster

[cbiltcliffe]

The REAL problem with hydrogen as a transport fuel is (repeat after me, kids!)...

HYDROGEN IS A NET LOSS FUEL. IT TAKES MUCH MORE ENERGY TO PRODUCE THAN YOU GET BURNING IT.

Every fuel is a net loss fuel. It's just that the energy that's gone into making crude oil, and by extension, gasoline, has been spread over several thousand, million, or billion years, depending on who you talk to.
Hydrogen can easily be generated with a solar panel, a couple of precious metal electrodes, and a big-assed water tank.
Incidentally, this is probably the most energy-efficient chemical conversion that we currently know of, as, with the exception of a small amount of impurities in the water, every single electron pumped off your negative electrode goes into breaking up one water molecule. There's no extra heat generated, there's no light, explosion, nothing. Just pure hydrogen generation.
And the other byproduct, oxygen, would be the least harmful factory byproduct of anything we currently make that could be dumped into the air, water, land, or food supply.