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

boom

[caldfyr]

When you run head-on into something at 185 will the hydrogen fireball be a different color than a gasolene one?

Re:boom

[caldfyr]

What the no-sense-of-humor poster above you was trying to say is that hydrogen burns cooler than gasolene and does so clearly (invisibly). What he failed to consider is that while hydrogen dissipates rapidly and needs a dense concentration to ignite, there is a perfectly dense mixture of it in the fuel cell. ANYTHING will explode when supplied with enough energy, even a hydrogen fuel cell. Quite a bit of energy is transferred by going from really fast to not moving in 0.25 seconds, and a lot of energy is transferred when you're rear ended by a tractor trailer at the red light. Just because it may be safer doesn't mean it is perfect. No need for anyone to go hydrogen fanboi on any /.ers

Re:boom

[Waffle Iron]

Are you implying that a tank of hydrogen can't explode into a fireball under any circumstances? Maybe you should review a tape of the Challenger disaster again.

BTW, regarding myth #2, I don't buy the theory that the Hindenburg accident was not made worse by hydrogen. If it were filled with helium, the outer skin might have burned off, but the entire frame of the airship probably would not have been instantly converted into white-hot molten aluminum. Maybe it would have gently settled to the ground, giving people enough time to think about not panicing and jump to their deaths.

Re:boom

[pyrrhonist]

Maybe it would have gently settled to the ground, giving people enough time to think about not panicing and jump to their deaths.

I'd just like to point out that 66% of the people on board the Hindenburg survived.

I'm not saying that more people couldn't have been saved, I'm just pointing out that the number of survivors is a lot higher than most people think.

Re:boom

[trburkholder]

From: Google Cache of Van Vorst and Bain theory

Furthermore, the substance used to coat the cotton skin -- a process known as "doping" which makes the fabric taut and more durable -- was extremely flammable. A combination of iron oxide, cellulose acetate and aluminum powder, "the total mixture might well serve as a respectable rocket propellant," Van Vorst said.

Iron oxide and aluminum powder are commonly referred to as thermite and are used for producing molten iron at temperatures well in excess of aluminum's 660 C melting point. However, there is a rebuttal to this argument which indicates that the paint lacked the requisite proportions for the thermite reaction.

Re:boom

[orzetto]

Hydrogen [...] needs a dense concentration to ignite

This is too bad inaccurate. The only serious point where hydrogen is less safe than gasoline is the flammable and explosive limits (see e.g. here). While you need a spark to start a gasoline fire, a air-hydrogen mixture can start burning only because of environmental static electricity (i.e. a windy day).

...even a hydrogen fuel cell

Not sure it is relevant, BMW are committed to using internal-combustion engines with hydrogen. This may not be efficient as fuel cells, but is definitely cheaper from the point of view of who buys the engine. Furthermore, BMW have already manufactured some 11 models of a series 7 running on both hydrogen and gasoline, with 150 kW of power.

next step...

[Coneasfast]

Hydrogen is obtained either from fossil fuels such as natural gas or by applying electrical power to water molecules. Ecologically, the problem of finding a regenerating source of primary energy remains.

let's see now if you can develop the world's cheapest car ;)

Re:next step...

[Depris]

Somebody already invented a car that was cheap and lasted a lot longer than conventional parts. He died broke when all the car companies lobbied against him because of the economic consequences.

Their was also a movie by Francis Ford Coppla about him with Jeff Bridges:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096316/

Re:next step...

[TheClassic]

Hydrogen is obtained either from fossil fuels such as natural gas or by applying electrical power to water molecules. Ecologically, the problem of finding a regenerating source of primary energy remains. This is the single most ignored fact about hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Too many people think they will solve our dependency on petroleum based fuel. They won't. On the other side of the picture, there may be advantages and economies of scale in terms of pollution in the manufacture of hydrogen. However, this issue needs to be carefully studied, instead of jumping on the magical solution bandwagon, to determine if hydrogen fuel cells are a feasible solution.

Re:next step...

[ifwm]

The only reason that we get hydrogen from non-renewable resources now is that you have to develop feasible fuel cells before we worry about infrastructure. What, we should find a way to refine vast amounts of hydrogen when there's no place to use it? Yeah, that's genius...

By the way, I'll gladly jump on the bandwagon (and eat crow if it crashes) because this is the magic bullet. Electricity and pure water, made from the most abundant element in the universe. Hmm we'd sure look like asses for buying into that one.

Re:next step...

[Skater]

You know the URL you supplied doesn't back up your statement, right?

"The SEC took him and five associates to court because his cars didn't have all the technical features that he had promised investors in his prospectus they would. That stymied his ability to raise the money he needed to produce the 300,000 cars he had orders for. It was not a case of the "big three" motor companies acting to crush him - in fact Ford gave him steering wheels for the Lincoln Zephyr as a gesture of help."

--RJ

Isn't -

[thewldisntenuff]

Hydrogen pretty dangerous stuff? I mean, I know it's quite explosive....(From what I recall from freshman chem :) ) Does anyone remember the Hindenberg?

Which brings my question - how do you stablize hydrogen so it's not so explosive?.....A car accident could spell disaster if not properly contained...Or am I wrong?

-thewldisntenufff

Re:Isn't -

[slacktide]

Isn't gasoline pretty dangerous stuff? I mean, I know it's quite explosive....(From what I recall from freshman chem :) ) Does anyone remember the multiple gasoline explosions that occur every day??

Which brings my question - how do you stablize gasoline so it's not so explosive?.....A car accident could spell disaster if not properly contained...Or am I wrong?

Re:Isn't -

[Upaut]

Hydrogen pretty dangerous stuff? I mean, I know it's quite explosive....(From what I recall from freshman chem :) ) Does anyone remember the Hindenberg? Actually, with the hydrogen being in stable fuelcells, instead of a mass collection, the chances of a hydrogen-oxegen explosion is very remote.
That and with the Hindenberg the main problem was the explosive nature of the paint, not the hydrogen within. The Hindenburg would of been one of the cheapest, and safest, methods of flight, except for just a couple of "cost saving measures" that ware taken that reduced the saftey.

Re:Isn't -

[davejenkins]

Does anyone remember the Hindenberg?

While the hydrogen contents of the Hindenberg certainly didn't help matters, that wasn't the main problem. The skin of the Zeppelin had been cured and doped with an aluminum oxide compound that is pretty much identical to solid rocket fuel (although this flammable quality wasn't known at the time).

Go back and watch the film again-- the skin ignites and burns quickly-- rather than the whole structure exploding/popping like a ping in a balloon.

Re:Isn't -

[at_18]

Does anyone remember the Hindenberg?

Hydrogen was not the cause for the Hindenberg disaster. Hydrogen burns without any visibile flame or smoeke. In the Hindenberg case, what burned was the external paint, which had a chemical composition quite similar to nitroglicerine (it wasn't known at the time).

Even more sad, most the deaths from that disaster were people jumping down while the ship was still in the air. Most of those who remained in the airship survived.

Re:Isn't -

[csguy314]

Actually, with the hydrogen being in stable fuelcells,

Ahhh, good old /., where people feel compelled to post before rtfa. The car doesn't use fuel cells for the engine. It's an hydrogen combustion engine.
The article says that BMW is researching fuel cells as well, but it's concentrating on combustion engines "because the sum total of its features and characteristics offers the largest number of advantages and benefits all in one."

Re:Isn't -

[(H)elix1]

Hydrogen pretty dangerous stuff? I mean, I know it's quite explosive...

Any kid (with proper access to materials) can tell you H2 alone will give a fair bang, but properly mixed with pure O2 the results are much more impressive. I remember blowing the windows out of the garden shed - Mom did not believe me when we said we were making water.

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:Isn't -

[IAR80]

The main problem is that you need to have the hidrogen liquefied or otherwise your tank will give you a range of 20cm. Also the H2 molecule is very small and tends to escape through pores. Combine this with high presure and a smoker in a huge underground parking lot.

Re:Isn't -

[k98sven]

[..]doped with an aluminum oxide compound that is pretty much identical to solid rocket fuel (although this flammable quality wasn't known at the time).

Actually, it was iron oxide and solid aluminum. These two substances can react in a very exothermic redox-reaction forming aluminum oxide. Such metal-metal oxide compounds are known as thermite.

The flammable quality was most certainly known at the time. The Germans actually used Zeppelins to drop incendiary thermite bombs on British targets during WWI.

Re:Isn't -

[DavidTC]

That's the gag. You have a gas leak while your car's sitting in the garage, you might have a mess and possibly a flameout.

You have a hydrogen leak, and someone walks in and flips on the light switch...

I hope, if they're going to do this, they're at least going to have the sense to perfume the hydrogen, like they do natural gas, so we can go 'Oh, crap, hydrogen leak' and run like hell.

I don't really understand the logic of hydrogen cars. If we have hydrogen, we can effortlessly convert that to 100% clean electricity via burning. So why the hell don't we just do that at the power plant?

I mean, I'd understand if we had some magical source of hydrogen, and we didn't want to lose power though the overhead of power transfer and batteries...but we don't. We have absolutely no way of getting hydrogen, outside of fossil fuels, that doesn't use up more electricity than we put into it. I've never heard of any way even proposed to get said hydrogen.

The entire concept is completely illogical, it sounds like someone realized you can burn hydrogen and get water, slept through an enviromental film, and built a 'clean' car. Hey, I can build a car that takes a continual supply of D batteries, by that logic it's a clean car.

And I have to point out the same applies to anything, thanks to thermodynamics. Everything on earth either exists at the lowest energy state, or at least will stay there if we make energy from it. We can't go around breaking up H20 and burning the H to get power, and anyone who's ever had any physics will easily explain why.

The only exceptions are things that are ultimately powered by the ouside, such as solar, wind, water, and tidal power. (Although geothermal, while a closed cycle, is not incredibly likely to run down in any measurable time. And the same with fussion and fission.)

Re:Isn't -

[steveha]

You have a hydrogen leak, and someone walks in and flips on the light switch...

I hope that the vent system will have a little pilot light or sparker or something, and will burn up the wasted hydrogen. Maybe even run the waste hydrogen through a fuel cell and charge a storage battery?

Except for your enclosed garage scenario, even unburned waste H2 should be safe, because it's lighter than air, so it will disperse quickly. If it settled to the ground in a pool, that would be bad. But even gases like propane, which can settle in a pool, rarely explode because they dissipate quickly. But yeah, contain them and ignite them and you are having a bad day.

I hope, if they're going to do this, they're at least going to have the sense to perfume the hydrogen, like they do natural gas

I don't think this will work. The whole point of the liquid hydrogen is that it is much much much more compact than gaseous hydrogen. Is there a scent you could add, that would be potent enough you could smell it when one milliliter of liquid hydrogen vaporises into one liter of gas? And would this potent smell chemical cause problems for the fuel cells, or make nasty chemicals when burned in the engine?

We have absolutely no way of getting hydrogen, outside of fossil fuels, that doesn't use up more electricity than we put into it. I've never heard of any way even proposed to get said hydrogen.

The FA proposes to use solar power to get the hydrogen out of water. This will work. You can put large solar plants in places where the sun shines a lot, and transport the hydrogen to where you need it.

The problem is that I'm dubious about liquid hydrogen as the way to transport it. Suppose you build a bunch of solar collectors out in, say, Mexico... or maybe you make solar collectors that just float on the ocean in an out-of-the-way place. Great. But can you keep it cold enough to still be liquid all the way from there, to the local fuel station where the customer buys it? Will you lose a bunch to boil-off as the liquid warms, or perhaps burn up a bunch to run refrigerators to chill it? Will you lose so much that it drives the price up? In short, is this really practical?

The other problem is that if this becomes really popular, I'm not sure solar can scale up enough to provide all the hydrogen people will want. Well, there's always the nuclear option.

I keep hoping someone will invent some magical fuel tank that will somehow really lock the hydrogen in. Maybe little microcells that each store a small quantity or something.

Our biggest problem isn't getting energy, it's getting energy exactly where you want it. If hydrogen becomes practical, you could put a power plant just anywhere and use hydrogen to bring the power wherever it's needed. And the hydrogen part wouldn't pollute anything.

steveha

Re:Isn't -

[Ricdude]

I hope, if they're going to do this, they're at least going to have the sense to perfume the hydrogen, like they do natural gas, so we can go 'Oh, crap, hydrogen leak' and run like hell.

Fuel Cell Today - Hydrogen Explosion Investigation

BURNABY, B.C. (CP) - Experts from United States have arrived to help investigate the explosion which resulted from a tanker truck leaking hydrogen at the Ballard Power facility. The leak sparked an explosion and small fire that sent the truck's driver to hospital with minor injuries. Officials from the Department of Transport, the U.S.-based Jack B. Kelly Inc. trucking company and Praxair will be meeting to investigate the incident in the coming days, Burnaby Fire Department assistant chief Jake Reynolds said Sunday he's been told. "It's a matter of dotting the i's and crossing the t's," he said. At around 9 p.m. Friday, a tanker moving fuel at the suburban Ballard Power Systems plant backed into an industrial building. The impact ruptured a hole in the tank, sparking a fire and leak. The truck driver suffered minor burns to his face but there were no other injuries or damage to the plant, Reynolds said. Crews let the fire burn out but were afraid the gas could explode again. A nearby golf course was evacuated, along with dozens of Ballard employees and those at a nearby Future Shop warehouse.

Now, admittedly, the driver only suffered minor burns. However, they did still evacuate a nearby golf course and warehouse. And the explosion was triggered solely by the leak (static electricity buildup as the gas leaves the tank, likely).

Now tell me why I want one of these in my car?

Re:Isn't -

[drinkypoo]

If I were in the shed when the windows all blew out, I'd be making water all right.

Re:Isn't -

[loophard]

Actually, it's because of thermodynamics that H2 has some promise. Take natural gas as a fuel source: if you burn it in a heat engine (car engine), you are limited to a maximum heat engine efficiency of around 20-30%. That is, 20% of the energy moves your car, the other 80% goes out the radiator. Heat engines are limited in output by something called Carnot efficiency. For a car, it might be 30%. But, fuel cell are NOT Carnot limited. It is still bound by thermodynamic rules of course, but it is a chemical reaction which has an upper efficiency much higher, like around 60-70%. So, the promise is to take a fossil fuel like natural gas, extract the hydrogen with an efficient process (like steam methane reforming) and then use it in an efficient fuel cell. That's the promise. Personally, as the previsous author, I have my doubts about future of fuel cells. Just too damn expensive.

What is it with.....

[phamNewan]

German engineering and hydrogen.

Re:What is it with.....

[IAR80]

Try russian engineering and nuclear reactors.

Not if well designed and tested

[stryders]

I wouldn't compare a giant bag full of hydrogen to a modern car engineered by a company well known for its safety engineering. Here's an older article that discusses their safety (scroll a bit) on CNN

Re:Not if well designed and tested

[RobertLTux]

besides if the car was designed with an upward/ multiple failpoints in the tank (ie the tank cracks on the top in about a half dozen places) what we would have is gas venting away from the area (the H blew because it contained the gas) safer than petrol maybe??

Vroom

[cynic10508]

I'm going outside right now to change the VTEC sticker on my Civic to read "HTEC".

Re:Vroom

[Stevyn]

Hydrogen Timing Electronic Control?

Eh hell, those rice boys will put a sticker that says anything on their cars.

Let's see how long...

[avalys]

Let's see how long it takes before some Slashdotter uses this opportunity to "accidentally" inform us that he drives a BMW.

Actually, the Hindenberg...

[Draconix]

...didn't get screwed-over because of the hydrogen, it got screwed-over because the paint used on it was highly flammable. Hydrogen is actually pretty safe, especially compared to petrol. Though hydrogen can have a stronger concussive blast when ignited, it goes 'foom' and that's it, the danger is gone. Petrol in liquid form doesn't burn, its fumes do, so it takes quite a lot time for a petrol fire to go out.

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

[Stevyn]

If you use nuclear fission to generate the electricity, then the pollution can be controlled to an extent. I'd rather see the nuclear waste stored in a huge container under a mountain than dispersed into the atmosphere.

People love to poke fun at fission and spread FUD around here. Face it, the world needs energy. Lots of it is required to sustain our civilizations. It took millions of years to generate the oil we'll use up in a few hundred years. I am all for expanding nuclear power because modern standards are worlds better than the practices at Chernobyl and three mile island.

Solar, wind, and water power are great, but I doubt they could provide the energy needs for this world at a reasonable cost.

Re:Pollution

[IAR80]

Actually hydro power is pretty efecient if you have the resources. Without developing a breeder reactor the uranium will run out as well.

Re:Pollution

[janvo]

Using electricity generated from nuclear powered plants is still going to create a lot of toxic nuclear waste that we really cannot manage properly. Why aren't we harnessing the ability of microbes to generate hydrocarbons like methane (CH4) on a large scale? Currently the cheapest way of producing hydrogen is by 'cracking' natural gas and other hydrocarbons. It's a well known fact that many animals emit massive amounts of methane and other gases that are produced by microbes in their innards. Has anyone crunched any numbers as to how much methane might be captured if we were to apply this to agricultural livestock? What kind of work has been done to understand the microbes that produce methane? Maybe we could have large methane production facilities based on photosynthesis and some other feedstock for these (perhaps genetically engineered) microbes? This would also have a profound postive affect on the environment in regards to the 'green house' gases. Not only would we be eliminating the emissions from the combustion of hydrocarbons but we would be preventing massive amounts of methane from entering the atmosphere. I know that methane accounts for up to 20% of green house gas emissions and is much potent because it traps 23 times as much heat then CO2. Any thoughts ?

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.

Re:Pollution

[ifwm]

There are types of algae that naturally emit hydrogen. Why bother with natural gas when you can just get the goods right away?

Re:Pollution

[maxpublic]

It's also devastating to downstream ecologies.

Yet not nearly so devastating per kilowatt produced as what you get from a coal plant. Furthermore, the damage done by a hydro plant is locally confined; that done by a coal plant is not. And finally, no hydro plant in the world will ruin your lungs or give you cancer.

Given the choice, I'll go with "fuck the fish" for $200!

Max

I have a question...

[KanSer]

Why couldn't we use Wind-power to extract Hydrogen from water? That seems like an infinite supply of hydrogen right there...

Re:I have a question...

[gtoomey]

Unfortunately the cheapest method of extracting hydrogen is via processing oil. Electrolysis costs more than cracking petroleum.

Re:I have a question...

[MidnightBrewer]

Let me see...wind costs us nothing. All you have to do is build the turbine and let it go. If you then use that as the energy to drive the process for producing the hydrogen, then although you're wasting so much energy (gasp!), it doesn't matter, because it's free.

We aren't going to start getting billed for all that wasted wind, are we? If that's the case, then reading Slashdot must be costing me a fortune. ;)

Re:I have a question...

[ifwm]

No, you're wrong. Oil is not used for hydrogen, natural gas is. They are not the same.

They get rid of the ...

[BrookHarty]

They work on using Hydrogen Combustion and not a fuel cell, then they use an advanced fuel cell for the electronics. Amusing.

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:misses the point of hydrogen

[cpuffer_hammer]

Years ago on NOVA it was said the the NOx problem could be reduced or eliminated by injecting water to cool the burn. Since injection of liquids is a known tech it should not be hard to do. The only problem is having the water in cylinders when the car is not running. This can be solved by stopping the water injection a few revolutions before the car is turned off.

That care probably costs $200,000

[drix]

All I want to know, does it come with an iPod hookup

At that price, it better come with a freaking iPod.

How to keep it cool?

[Dog's_Breakfast]

From the BMW web site:

"...the specially insulated 140-liter tank for the liquid hydrogen provides a range of 400 kilometers....By cooling hydrogen to -253 degrees Celsius, hydrogen is shrunk to a thousandth of its original volume. 70 layers of aluminum and fiberglass sheets between the exterior and interior vehicle walls insure that the liquid hydrogen remains at extremely low temperatures."

What I don't understand is how they manage to keep it at such a low temperature. If the tank warmed up to the normal temperature of the surrounding environment, the pressure inside the tank would be 1000 times greater than sea level. Wouldn't that pose a danger of explosion?

Re:How to keep it cool?

[IAR80]

DO NOT park your car in the sun.

Re:How to keep it cool?

[Dog's_Breakfast]

Yes, it's got great insulation. Rather like a super-Thermos jug. But even the best Thermos jug eventually fails to keep your drinks hot/cold forever. I don't think there is any insulation that is 100% energy-leakproof. So back to the car - if you burn off the hydrogen quickly, it should be no problem. But park the car in a sunny place for a few days, and an explosion seems like a distinct possibility (unless of course the tank can withstand 1000X atmospheric pressure). It would have to be a pretty strong tank.

Re:How to keep it cool?

[MillionthMonkey]

The 70 layers of fiberglass probably do a good job. The temperature will decrease linearly from one Al pane to the next as you go in. Of course this would imply a temperature gradient, so heat is flowing in, but very slowly (because of the fiberglass) and as the hydrogen warms up I would imagine they have a pressure regulator to let the system burp out a bit of gas once in a while. That robs the liquid of a lot of heat from the PdV term alone. My guess is that if you wait long enough all of the liquid will evaporate to the gas phase and escape via the regulator, and the interior temperature will increase once the hydrogen is gone.

"Hydrogen power" is still a ripoff. What we need are nuclear cars. That would solve the carbon emissions problem, and everyone would be nervous and drive more carefully so it would save lives too.

Re:How to keep it cool?

[rossdee]

" I wonder how much heat it takes out of the engine? Would it be enough to see the end of water cooling for the engine?"

They would probably use water from the cooling system to vaporise the hydrogen. Propane powered cars (LPG) use this method. Using the liquid H2 to directly cool the engine would probably cause the engine block to crack.

Re:How to keep it cool?

[anadem]

by latent heat of vaporization? start very cold, and "exhale" (leak or burn) H2 continually? LN2 is kept cold that way, don't know if it's feasible for H2 bcos of the lower BP?

Re:How to keep it cool?

[Jeremi]

But park the car in a sunny place for a few days, and an explosion seems like a distinct possibility

I think the concept of an overpressure release valve is well understood by automotive engineers... so the worst case would be that you come back to find your tank empty.

I wonder what it sounds like...

[7-Vodka]

Wow that's prettycool. An internal combustion engine that runs off hydrogen.

I think I would be an early adopter for this if:

1. I could make my own hydrogen at home by having a hydrogen-making machine hooked up to my water mains and a bunch of solar cells on my house (or wind nearby or whatever).
2. An affordable car that either uses this type of engine or an electric motor powered by a fuel cell.
3. a local mechanic that can fix these

I don't think I'd even need shell to be on board if I could make the stuff at home.

Now I wonder what the engine sounds like! It probably growls at wide open throttle in third gear : )

hydrogen dissipates faster

[SuperBanana]

A car accident could spell disaster if not properly contained...Or am I wrong?

In the unlikely event that the car's structure was intruded enough to damage the tank, the leaking hydrogen would escape upwards and dissipate extremely rapidly. This makes it rather difficult to be ignited by, say, sparking from electrics or hot components in the engine compartment. There is no environmental impact and no cleanup- the hydrogen harmlessly dissipates up into the environment.

In a car accident with gasoline, the gasoline pools on the ground and vapors are heavier than air. That makes them very easy to ignite. Gasoline(especially with MTBE) is cancerous and must be cleaned up, and it takes a while to do so because it's so easily ignited.

Hydrogen also requires a much higher fuel/air ratio; ie there has to be a higher concentration.

The main safety problem with hydrogen is that it is molecularly so small that hoses and seals are very hard to make for it. A balloon full of hydrogen would deflate even faster than one filled with Helium...

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.

Oh, and the fact that the main method of production cited by our really smart President is- surprise- natural gas! Well, guess what folks- you gotta use chemicals to get the H2 out of the complex hydrocarbon of LNG, and you gotta put those leftover Carbon (and other elements) into something. Expect to see hydrogen plants which dump lots of waste in the form of toxic catalysts and leftover byproducts. Or just toss it up a smokestack and make it the problem of whoever is 5,000 miles away.

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.

Re:hydrogen dissipates faster

[ansible]

Of course, producing hydrogen with solar power is so inefficient, it is incredibly expensive.

Run some numbers on solar cell efficiency. And then run some numbers on .

And after that, you just have hydrogen gas. You also have to cool it and compress it to get LH2. This also takes considerable energy, and it is a hassle to transport, because it is need to be very cold. You wouldn't think a few degrees K would make such a difference. But transport/storage of LN2 or LOX is much less expensive than for LH2.

I truly wish it wasn't the case, but you'll go broke replacing solar cells before you make a profit at this operation.

Re:hydrogen dissipates faster

[drinkypoo]

As long as your solar panels are net positive energy sources, your hydrogen production will also be net positive. In many places you can produce it near your point of consumption and minimize your transport cost. It doesn't require extensively-sized equipment like cracking petroleum does - well, to do it in a cost-effective way anyhow. Minimizing transport is a good way to cut costs, in fact. One nice thing about hydrogen production is that you can use any source of electrical power for the disassociation of water. It can be wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, geothermal, whatever you have handy. Actually it works best with distilled water since the output is pure(r) and in order to distill water you need heat. Using the type of solar where an array of mirrors are focused on a boiler (I understand that the hot new shit is liquid sodium?) you can get all the heat you need for your distillation process out of the return side of the system, which will in turn cool the system, and you can run the turbines to generate the electricity to make the hydrogen. If you put it someplace where a road is easy to maintain, or is already being maintained, most of your problems are solved in one swell foop. Geothermal would also be pretty nice, for similar reasons.

Personally I'd rather see further development in EV technology. For the majority of most people's driving, an electric vehicle is basically perfect, but for some reason they are intensely expensive, well out of proportion of what it costs to make them. People have constructed numerous examples on their own, in their spare time, largely involving car batteries, and have often been quite successful with them. If all you're doing is running errands around town a bit, an EV is perfect. As most families have two cars these days, it seems like the ideal vehicle.

Electric motors make peak torque at 0 rpm and are very efficient - some motors actually used in vehicular applications today are over 80% efficient both as a motor, and as a generator. Compare this to the horrible inefficiency of your average auto (which, you will note, does not do regenerative braking at all) and you too might start wondering when the next big advance in battery technology is coming along. Actually, I think that you could accomplish a lot with a system which combined deep cycle lead-acid batteries with some of those "super capacitors" but they are incredibly expensive. They would be handy for acceleration, and regenerative braking, since deep cycle batteries both charge and discharge slowly.

Hybrids are here now but I prefer TDI to them. While the batteries are warrantied, they are still an environmental issue. Alternative-source diesel fuel in a TDI is far preferable to me. For around-town use, however, I want electric.

Great Accomplishment: Go Deutschland!

[reporter]

let's see now if you can develop the world's cheapest car ;)

Let's not be cynical. This BMW vehicle is a significant accomplishment. It shows that a high-performance vehicle running solely on hydrogen can be built.

Now, let's just entice Honda to apply Japanese manufacturing technologies to reduce the cost of the vehicle by a factor of 1000. Please remember that the Americans invented the videotape recorder (VR), and it started out at more than $10,000 per unit. Then, Japanese companies took it and shrank the price to $50, the current price.

We should applaud this German accomplishment in automotive engineering. The BMW vehicle is certainly more amazing than the ridiculous solar-powered vehicle, which will "never" be practical. Yet, solar-powered vehicles seem to entice more interest than hydrogen-powered vehicles.

Go Deutschland!

Re:Actually

[MtViewGuy]

While the coating compenents were potentially reactive, they were separated by a layer of material that should have inhibited the reaction from starting.

Alas, the Wikipedia article forgot one aspect: the mounting bolts for the canvas covering were made of steel, which allowed a static discharge to move through the canvas covering VERY quickly. Because the Hindenberg had flown near a thunderstorm just before the explosion, there was a buildup of static electricity on the entire airship and when it discharged the mounting bolts transmitted the static discharge, causing a large portion of the canvas covering to literally explode on the initial explosion.

That's why on the short-lived airship Graf Zeppelin II (LZ 130), the Zeppelin engineers switched to bronze mounting bolts for the canvas covering, so the static discharge would not be transmitted through the mounting bolts.

By the way, the Zeppelin company actually produced an internal report about the Hindenberg explosion and that report cited issues with the potential flammability of the canvas covering doping compound. Alas, that report was quickly surpressed by the Nazi government for various reasons.

Mazda has a hydrogen-powered rotary

[ikekrull]

Mazda's rotary engine is well suited to the combustion of hydrogen, not least because it completely separates the intake, combustion and exhaust stages - with a piston engine there is a lot of potential for catastophic backfire, and high performance without any valve overlap (which would somewhat prevent this) is difficult to acheive.

The renesis (side-ported intake and exhaust - 'normal' rotaries have peripheral exhaust and often intake ports and intake/exhaust port overlap is employed to maximise performance at high revs, resulting in the characteristic 'brap-brap-brap' pulsing idle of a race or drag rotary engine and incredibly poor fuel economy at low revs) rotary engine doesnt suffer from this problem, allowing high-revs, aggressive induction and exhaust port profiles, along withthe light weight and excellent power-weight ratio rotaries inherently possess.

The current hybrid engine in the RX-8 only produces about 120hp when operating on hydrogen which isn't exactly stunning, but bear in mind that the original RX-7 produced less than this, while the last model to roll off the production line produced in excess of 280.

400+ HP is relatively easily acheiveable with proper porting, fueling and turbocharging of the 1.3 litre 13B engine on petrol, and with further development (or even tuning for hydrogen-only operation) it is not too far fetched to imagine the hydrogen-powered rotary performing on par or better than conventional fuels.

More info can be found:

http://rotarynews.com/?q=node/view/216

and a hydrogen--powered RX-8 looks like:

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/frame.php?file=pi c. php&imagenum=1&carnum=1792

My BMW already runs on hydrogen ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... which I purchase in a convenient hydrogen storage container called "gasoline".

Cool!

[commodoresloat]

Yeah! We could put a windmill on top of the car so it is powered by the movement of the car!

Wait a minute...

Re:Survivors?

[AlinuxNCSU]

Google "hindenburg survivors" perhaps? I mean, come on, there are links on the first results page! They might not give you the number of survivors, but they definitely confirm that there were some.

For the lazy:

http://www.airships.net

http://www.vidicom-tv.com/hindenburg/making_of.htm

http://www.authentichistory.com/audio/1930s/histor y/19370506_Hindenberg_Disaster_Herb_Morrison-short .html

-Alex

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.

Actually it's purely a public relations exercise.

[Moderation abuser]

Marketing.

This particular hydrogen vehicle is less efficient than a conventional petrol or Diesel vehicle so we're not exactly taking acheivements here.

Nice looking cars

[InsaneCreator]

Car companies keep showing us all theese incredible looking prototypes, but why won't they sell us a car that looks the same? By the time a new car makes it to the salons it looks almost exactly like all the other damn cars you can choose from, and attaching a baboon's but to the rear end is considered to be a bold new design direction. yech.

Re: misses the point of hydrogen [again]

[Phanatic1a]

Oil is expensive and will run out one day, hydrogen won't

Sure it will. It already has. The Earth's gravity isn't strong enough to retain hydrogen in the atmosphere.

Hydrogen simply does not exist in a free state. So to get hydrogen, you need to manufacture it.

This is done commercially via the reformation of hydrocarbons like natural gas. And, like you suggest, they'll run out.

You can also manufacture hydrogen through the electrolysis of water. This takes electricity. You get your electricity from burning fossil fuels, which like you suggest, will run out.

Unless you have a clean source of electricity to begin with, hydrogen-fueled cars aren't going to clean anything up, and they still rely on "a substance that will run out eventually."

Re:Survivors?

[nutshell42]

Of the ninety-seven aboard, thirty-six died, including thirteen ?civilian? (paying) passengers, the first passengers of this kind killed in a dirigible accident.

From here

Hydrogen burns like... well hydrogen but in case of an airship you don't have a hydrogen oxygen mixture that will explode but pure hydrogen which slowly mixes with the surrounding air and burns down (the same reason why cars don't explode like in Hollywood movies but burn). Due to the sheer size of an airship, its seperated tanks and the lucky fact that the fire on the Hindenburg started at the back and during the landing the ship came down rather softly

Re:Hang on. Isn't the idea to *increase* efficienc

[muyuubyou]

One can use nuclear power to generate that hydrogen, which would be not 10% more or less, but orders of magnitude more efficient.

I'm surprised to be hearing anything about this

[Phil Karn]

I'm a little surprised to be hearing anything about hydrogen cars these days. Hydrogen fueled cars were heavily hyped a few years ago when the automakers were strong-arming the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to drop its near-term mandate for electric vehicles in favor of a promise for a few magical hydrogen-fueled cars some years in the future. The scam worked: CARB rescinded the EV mandate, many working EVs were pulled from their satisfied owners, and that's why you hear so little about hydrogen these days.

The simple facts are that hydrogen is not a source of energy, but rather an energy carrier, like electricity. And hydrogen is a rather poor energy carrier at that; it's far less efficient than the electric power grid, which already exists and goes almost everywhere. Hydrogen isn't even a good energy storage medium in a car, due to its extremely low density.

The fact is that there's nothing a hydrogen fuel-cell car can do that isn't already done better, more efficiently and more cheaply by a battery EV. Just when new battery technologies like nickel metal hydride and lithium-ion were starting to prove their worth in EVs, CARB pulls the rug out from under them.

Call me cynical, but that seems to fit the facts.

Re:I'm surprised to be hearing anything about this

[horza]

I'm a little surprised to be hearing anything about hydrogen cars these days. Hydrogen fueled cars were heavily hyped a few years ago when the automakers were strong-arming the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to drop its near-term mandate for electric vehicles in favor of a promise for a few magical hydrogen-fueled cars some years in the future. The scam worked: CARB rescinded the EV mandate, many working EVs were pulled from their satisfied owners, and that's why you hear so little about hydrogen these days.

I think this is partly true. It's outrageous how the car manufacturers crushed the electric car industry. Those that advertised themselves as selling electric cars would actually only lease them, and as soon as they had pulled the wool over the eyes of the government then had them forcibly recalled and destroyed (the owners not allowed to purchase them full-price despite their pleas).

However, hydrogen power is continually advancing. When producing a break-through, announcements come quick and fast. The process of refining this into a commercially cheap solution for mass production is a little more arduous and takes more patience.

The simple facts are that hydrogen is not a source of energy, but rather an energy carrier, like electricity. And hydrogen is a rather poor energy carrier at that; it's far less efficient than the electric power grid, which already exists and goes almost everywhere. Hydrogen isn't even a good energy storage medium in a car, due to its extremely low density.

The grid doesn't go everywhere, unless you want to tie a particularly long cable to your EV. Hydrogen can be produced anywhere there is electricty (or even only sunlight) and water (using electrolysis). Hydrogen is good enough for a car as it is light, unlike batteries, and a small form factor tank can power a vehicle for hundreds of kilometres.

The fact is that there's nothing a hydrogen fuel-cell car can do that isn't already done better, more efficiently and more cheaply by a battery EV. Just when new battery technologies like nickel metal hydride and lithium-ion were starting to prove their worth in EVs, CARB pulls the rug out from under them.

The fact is battery technology hasn't moved on much for decades. In cars the batteries are too heavy and to slow to recharge. And not just in cars either. Manufacturers are now starting to produce fuel-cells for laptops and mobile phones.

Phillip.

Re: misses the point of hydrogen [again]

[ifwm]

Yes, everything you said is true.

Now to the part you haven't bothered to learn about. Several types of algae exist in nature that produce hydrogen as a byproduct of photosynthesis.

In addition, hydrogen can also be produced using biomass.

Both are renewable, and don't rely on fossil fuels to make hydrogen.

Re:This thing doesn't run on hydrogen...

[ifwm]

Get your facts straight. Yes the main source of hydrogen is natural gas (not oil like you stated, a dead giveaway that you don't know what you're talking about) but there are many other viable sources that could and will be scaled up if necessary. Hydrogen producing algae, biomass, and electrolysis are 3 examples.

Re:Hydrogen conversion for ``normal'' car?

[cbiltcliffe]

Compression ratio.

A normal 8:1 compression small block Chevy V8 from the mid-80's will generate 25-50% less power on hydrogen than on gasoline. The reasons for that 8:1 compression are emissions, preignition due to octane rating, and a few other things.

Hydrogen doesn't have the preignition problems of gasoline, though, so you could run an 18:1 compression ration in the same SBC, provided the crank and main bearings can take it. This should give you close to the same power output as 8:1 on dead prehistoric things, but wouldn't be able to be run on gasoline, anymore. Nothing short of jet fuel, anyway....

The problem becomes, no after-market manufacturer makes piston/head combinations for SBC's to go over about 13:1 compression. So, without a turbo, supercharger, or ram-air, you can't get the "required" amount of power.
If you're ok with a slower car, with near-zero emissions, go for it. Otherwise, you're going to need to get engine components custom-made, which is prohibitively expensive for most hobbyists. (I know...I've already looked into doing this for a 3.8 Buick-powered 1984 Pontiac Grand Prix.)

The other alternative would be to start with a diesel engine, which will already have an appropriate compression ratio. You'll need to do some interesting machine work on the head, though, as the diesel has no spark plug holes. I don't know if a diesel fuel injector could be replaced with a standard spark plug, or whether the threads/diameter wouldn't match, though, so this could turn out to be only a minor problem. Also, diesel engines are more expensive than gasoline, due to their heavier construction. This wouldn't bother some people, but I don't have a diesel engine sitting around to experiment with.
The next thing would be to somehow connect a spark ignition system to a diesel engine block, which was never designed to use such an animal.

etc.etc.etc.etc.

Suffice it to say, there are problems with this approach. Not insurmountable, by any means, but not something average Joe Schmuck is going to do in his back yard.

Re:Actually

[slacktide]

Yes, because bronze is obviously non-conductive, eh? Are you sure they didn't switch to bronze because it's more corrosion resistant?

Re:Hydrogen conversion for ``normal'' car?

[DavidTC]

Those people are con artists.

As for converting a car to partially power it via hydrogen...why not just run it off pure vodka?

I'll tell you why not...they both cost more than gas!

Re: misses the point of hydrogen [again]

[AaronW]

So we just declare that Jupiter has weapons of mass destruction and invade and extract all its hydrogen.

Re: misses the point of hydrogen [again]

[Dominatus]

"You can also manufacture hydrogen through the electrolysis of water. This takes electricity. You get your electricity from burning fossil fuels, which like you suggest, will run out." Except that clean energy will never solve the problem of finding oil. If we discover a true source of clean energy then we still havent solved the problem of finding an alternative to oil. Two scenarios. Let's say we are running on oil based ICEs. If we find a clean source of energy, we haven't fixed anything. Let's say we are running on hydrogen based ICEs and we find a clean source of energy. Then we HAVE solved a problem. In other words, hydrogen based ICEs DO solve a problem in that they solve part of the problem that cars pose.

Overlooking the obvious, once again

[theolein]

I see people here bitching about the fact that it takes energy to rpoduce hydrogen, and that that energy usually comes from oil, or when the poster is "enlightened", nuclear energy. I'm surprised, really, although I shouldn't be, that yet again, no one bothered to read the article about BMW working with Shell to produce automatic filling stations with solar power.

And solar power is where it's at. In these times of global warming and increasing desertification, there's really one source that provides energy constantly: The sun. I seriously doubt that the investements needed to get a solar powered economy up and running, with the power coming from all the huge deserts in the world, would be that huge.

It would be a boon for most Saharan countries, the Arabs once again, as well as basically anywhere there is a lot of sun.

All it requires is someone to get the ball rolling. And that's what I like about this BMW/Shell project. It's getting that ball rolling.

Still with the cars?

[Fortress]

Really, picking on cars for emissions is by now a dead horse. The exhaust from a modern, emissions-controlled car is so clean that it is difficult to kill yourself by leaving the car running with the garage closed. There are bigger fish to fry, like tractor trailers, that emit far dirtier emissions than any modern car.

It's not even like hydrogen-burning cars are entirely clean. Sure, you can drink the water from the exhaust, but any compression engine will produce oxides of nitrogen unless they also carry a tank of pure oxygen (which would clean up a gasoline engine in much the same manner). Fuel cells are much cleaner, but I don't think they're developed enough yet for the mainstream.

The use of hydrogen makes cars more dangerous, too. To put it simply, a compressed fuel is a dangerous fuel. Any accident that breaches the H2 tank turns the vehicle into a fuel-air explosive. I don't think the public will stand for too many fireballs on the highway. Contrary to what Hollywood would have you believe, cars almost never explode and rarely catch fire in accidents.

Worse still, a mass changeover to hydrogen as our vehicle fuel would cause huge economic upheaval. Hydrogen consumes huge amounts of power to produce, and it adds no energy to our system; it merely acts as a relatively convenient energy storage vessel. Petroleum, on the other hand, consumes very little energy to reach its refined state and contributes a large portion of our total energy use. If it were mandated today that hydrogen must replace gasoline for vehicles, energy prices across the board would probably triple.

Hydrogen makes nice PR, but it will never power vehicles until oil has become so expensive due to scarcity that we've already migrated to other, renewable energy sources.

Re:How to keep it cool? Some history

[IceFoot]

A bit of history:

Back in the olden days, say pre-1960, if you wanted to keep something very cold you used a Dewar flask (pronounced DOO-er), which operated on the principle of "one layer of very good insulation." Namely, a vacuum. No gas to carry the heat away, so good insulation.

Then along came NASA and the space program, which needed to build insulation into the space capsules and the astronauts's space suits to protect them from the extreme cold of space. (Of course, here the insulation is to keep the cold *out* of the container, but the principle is the same.)

They decided putting astronauts into Dewar flasks just wouldn't work. 8^)

A different type of insulation was needed, and they came up with the idea of "lots of layers of pretty-good insulation". It worked surprisingly well, has been widely used ever since, and is the type of insulation mentioned in the article: alternate layers of aluminized mylar and fiberglass, enough of them (70 in this case) that the liquid hydrogen stays cold because very little heat is leaking in.

h to the izzo

[I7D]

Hydrogen is great because it can make a long-lasting battery. What we need now is more advancement in solar panels (like the recent /. article using spinach). Our cars may not run directly off of them, but solar panels would help a lot with extraction of hydrogen from water.

The dangers of gas powered cars

[Xenna]

In Holland about 5% of all cars on the road (and the ones that get the most mileage) run on Liquid Petrol Gas (LPG). My car is one of them. LPG is used in the rest of Europe as well.

I have never heard of an exploding gas tank, the tanks are apparently so solid that they crush everything around them but stay intact themselves.

Forgetting to unplug the nozzle while filling up happens relatively often. There's a special weak spot in the tube that breaks in such cases. Also you have to keep a button on the gas pump depressed for the pump to operate. Release it and the gas flow stops. Driving away without unpluggng is harmless (except to your wallet). I've never heard of accidents with pumps.

There have been some accidents with LPG delivery trucks that supply the gas stations. I believe there was big one near a camping ground in Spain quite a while ago.

I can understand driving with a gas tank in your car may seem scary to people who aren't used to it, but we do so without worrying over here.

Of course, I don't know how Hydrogen compares to LPG for these purposes. That might well be a whole different story.

X.

Re:Hang on. Isn't the idea to *increase* efficienc

[foldedspace]

No, it has nothing to do with increasing effiency.

• It's reducing our demand for fossil fuels (nuclear/solar power separates water).
• CLEANER air.
• Keeping cars simple and cheap to own and operate. How many mechanics do you know that would work on a hybrid?
• Maintaining basic infrastructure (gas stations) and making it possible to drive long distances. Battery powered cars would require long recharge times.

It's a stepping stone

[Ex-MislTech]

We are not going to transistion to hydrogen overnight, not even close .

Most ppl will want their gas powered cars for a few decades to come
if for any other reason than cost .

In a decade or two, or three, more clean power will be developed
like Bubble Fusion(proven) or Cold Fusion(unproven)

Tidal Generators at the Bay of Fundy alone could make more power
than all the dams on earth combined . Just need to make them
underwater turbines so as not to destroy the sea floor like the large french one is doing in their country .

Wind Farms and Solar farms sometimes have excess power, it could be
used to make hydrogen, and I still think the massive amounts of sewer gas world wide could be used for energy .

There are PLENTY of alternative power sources .

Just think if we developed a way to capture the majority of the
power from the majority of land based lightning in the world .

I am not saying it would be easy, but then again the amount of
effort/money it took to make the manhattan project or the
apollo project could be applied to make us less oil dependant .

Notice I did not say oil free, we will still use it for lubricant, plastic, and what not .

The keyboard, mouse, and monitor in front of you is made of
plastic, as is your cell phone, cd's, dvd's, tires, etc etc etc .

Oil is used to make most exterior paint too .

We can move to alternative energy FULLY in the next 50 years, but
it is going to take a MAJOR commitment by the powers that be .

I think it will be resisted due to the three most powerful emotions of human beings .

1)Greed 2)Fear 3)Apathy ; Greed of the powers that be .

Fear of the powers that be they will lose their power and wealth
for them and their children, etc etc, Drop in stock value, etc etc

Apathy of the common man who would rather watch (x)ball, as they
take a animal skin and bash it about on a grass field on the
ground or in the air . Total expediture for all the various
ball related sports being TRILLIONS of dollars world wide.

If we put in 10% the effort that went into sports from pee-wee
league to the pro leagues, we'd be off oil as a fuel in 20 years
or less . But it isn't gonna happen, no way, no how .

Call me cynical, and sarcastic, I will wear
it like a badge of friggin courage .

I know hypocrisy, the human race is it .

Peace,
Ex-MislTech

Costs vs gasoline? Energy efficiency?

[seven of five]

Ok, so you're splitting water to get the H2 then liquifying it. Anybody care to comment on the cost per mile (km) of running on H2 vs gasoline, assuming idealized production & distribution of H2?