Slashdot Mirror


Steam Hybrid Car from BMW

RMX writes "BMW is unveiling its turbosteamer hybrid engine, which uses the excess heat in the exhaust system and reclaims 80% of it by powering a steam engine that assists the gas engine. Overall, this gives a 15% more efficient engine; and significant additional performance (power and torque) with practically no downside. "This project resolves the apparent contradiction between consumption and emission reductions on one hand, and performance and agility on the other," commented Professor Burkhard Göschel. Are steam engines the future of environmental-friendly hybrid vehicles?"

17 of 663 comments (clear)

  1. Downsite? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...with practically no downside.

    Additional moving parts, and servicability? How many modern garages know how to service a steam engine?

  2. Real world value ... by LazyBoyWrangler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Although the idea seems nice on the surface, how much more energy goes into refining the metal for the additional engine? How much weight is added? How much cost is added? Although many of these schemes seem beneficial, when evaluated over the lifespan of the product it may be a net zero or net loss from the existing technology. If people would stop buying new cars every two years, we would be better off than everyone buying the newest, latest greatest enviro-trendmobile constantly.

    1. Re:Real world value ... by the_humeister · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the same could be said for a regular gas/electric hybrid...

    2. Re:Real world value ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Quote " Americans for some reason have a weird bias against efficiency; I always hear these kinds of objections when an idea to make something more energy efficient comes up. It's almost like we're afraid of it. "

      Sorry to jump in anonymously here but that is an interesting point, and one that is relevant to most developed countries, including here in England.

      My theory is:

      The whole point of 'modern' living, is to reach a state where we have so many machines and resources available to each of us, that we never feel personally limited or restricted - in other words 'poor'. Unfortunately, the standard of living that we feel we need to achieve this state is constantly going up, as the Joneses keep on buying more stuff.

      So in cars for example, We've gone from the Model T ford, with it's short range, slow speed and limited carrying capacity, to todays SUVs and 4x4s, which offer massive comfort, load capacity and high cruising speed. Over that 80-90 years though, the fuel consumption has gone from around 15mpg to around..err...20mpg. The internal combustion engine has been refined and made more efficient, and vastly more poweful, but with little improvemnt in mpg overall.

      What's really changed then? The weight of the car. As a percentage of the cars fully laden weight, the average person has gone from being around 14% of the total, to say around 3% in the case of the new Land Rovers. Put 4 people in the Model T, and they make 38% of the total. Do the same in new Land Rover, and those 4 people make up 12% of the total weight - less than the impact of 1 person getting in their Model T

      This means that the 'modern' car gives a better feeling of luxury, of power, of not being restricted. When you get in it, your personal mass makes very little difference to the performance of the vehicle, giving a greater feeling of 'limitless power'. And when all your friends get in then hey, it hardly makes a difference. Again, all about making sure you never feel 'restricted'.

      So to get back to your original point, I think that efficiency is avoided where possible because it reinforces the limits, it reminds you of just how much of an excess you need to keep up the pretence of 'modern' living. It basically makes you think you could be poor. Because after all, what is the difference between living efficiently, and being poor?? I suppose one you choose, the other you don't.

    3. Re:Real world value ... by TheNarrator · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Americans for some reason have a weird bias against efficiency; I always hear these kinds of objections when an idea to make something more energy efficient comes up. It's almost like we're afraid of it.

      I know exactly what you are talking about. I have spent a lot of time arguing energy technology and efficiency on peak oil message boards and it kind of goes like this:

      Unabomber: Oh goody, peak oil is going to happen we're all going back to live on subsistance farms and industrial society and all those idiots with SUVs will be punished!

      Me: Hey, but what about technology X?

      Unabomber: Look at the EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested). To get all the steel out of the ground to build that would cause huge amounts of global warming.

      Me: Ok, but it's something right? It will make life better right and the investment will eventually pay off?

      Unabomber: Ha Ha! Nothing can stop the doom of technological society. Your puny inventions are no use!

      Me: But I kinda like technological society.

      Unabomber: Nature must punish you for your hubris to rise above the other animals. Repent and move back to an organic farm while there is still time!!!

      Me: Well I'm going to ignore you and build technology X anyway.

      Unabomber: But you'll cause global warming and keep perpetuating your unsustainable way of life.

      Me: Better than going back to the stone age.

  3. Heat Recovery Steam Generator? by HuggybearVT · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Combined cycle power plants aren't exactly revolutionary. They're more efficient, but more expensive to buy and maintain.

  4. Downsides - A few by N8F8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Here are a few downsides off hand:

    * More parts == higher maintenance (pumps, special catalytic convertor, etc)

    *at least 24 ft of piping that may be impacted by even minor collisions

    *Steam systems extra sensitive to corrosion from impurities in coolant.

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
  5. Repairs... by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How many modern garages know how to service a steam engine?

    I would think that BMW dealerships would be able to service BMW autos, no? Yes, I understand the rush to FP, but do you think maybe they'll have this covered by the time they go into production?

    I am glad to see some innovation to the standard IC engine.

    But I guess it's just easier to sit in your armchair and criticize real engineering...

    --
    A house divided against itself cannot stand.
    1. Re:Repairs... by Short+Circuit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would think that BMW dealerships would be able to service BMW autos, no?

      Sure, the dealership will know how to service it, but that wasn't what I was referring to by "garages". I was referring to those independent garages where you can often get cheaper, better service. I don't take my 1991 Plymouth Voyager to a Chrysler dealership; They're booked solid and will want to replace half the car. I take it to a small guy on the outskirts of the city who comes up with cheaper solutions .

      Oh, and fooey on FP. I really don't give a damn; it just happens more often because I'm a subscriber.

    2. Re:Repairs... by MindStalker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I know a few people who work in garages, and here is how it goes. Lets take the new hybrids for example. The first hybrid models came out about 5 years ago. At that time the garages did not worry about learning them as they all had warrenties and nobody is going to take a new under warrenty car into a garage. About 2 years ago this local garage realized that eventually they would need to be able to service these new cars, so they sent a few guys to some classes to learn. I believe the garage is now certified to work on these cars, right as the cars are starting to come out of warrenty. Many smaller garages are waiting a bit longer though untill there is enough demand for service as such cars would only account for a very small percentage of their buisness (not many hybrids were sold in the first couple years, so it will still be a while before you see many hybrids out of warrenty)

  6. New every 2 isn't such a problem... by Myself · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The used cars don't get crushed as soon as the first owner is done with them, they go onto the used market and hopefully allow less enviro-trendy people, who just want a new car, to replace the old gas-guzzler they'd been driving. The new green-mobile will be sipping less gas throughout its entire lifespan, no matter who's at the wheel.

    The trouble is when people buy new cars that are NOT environmentally friendly, those cars also continue to guzzle for as long as they're on the road. If the average vehicle coming off the assembly line were more efficient, then we'd be pushing out the older crap with newer, better stuff. But the average fuel economy of ALL manufactured vehicles has actually DROPPED since the 1990s:
    ... availability of four-wheel drive. The increasing market share of these vehicles, combined with their lower average fuel economy, has contributed to a lowering in overall average fuel economy since the mid-1980s.
    from Automobile and Light Truck Fuel Economy
  7. Re:It hardly reclaims 80% of the energy by Vellmont · · Score: 3, Insightful


    There's a much simpler and more effective solution... Go full electric drive hybrid. Decouple the engine from the drive.

    So you want to go from:
    gasoline->motion->electricty->motion

    instead of

    gasoline->motion

    I can't really imagine that's any more (and probbably less with all those energy form transformations) efficient than the current hybrids. Engine efficiency comes from small engines running at constant speeds. That's already accomplished with the hybrids.

    --
    AccountKiller
  8. Misconceptions. But this is a GOOD thing. by CodeShark · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Two main misconceptions:
     
    • that a "steam" engine requires a lot of water (true only if there is no condensor. AKA the radiator on the front of the car.), and
    • this would somehow result in a broken down car with no repair facilities able to get someone back on the road. This is an additive system, when it is working, it adds power and mileage, when not, you have your regular gas-guzzling beemer.

    Of course at this point this is just a concept system, it remains to see if it ever makes it into production.

    My hope would be to see the steam engine addition connect to an electrical hybrid system, and that the main power source be a low-rev/high torque diesel engine. Do that with dynamic braking, etc. and you might just get an automobile engine that is say, 70% as efficient as the big diesel locomotive engines have been for what, 30 years?

    --
    ...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
  9. Re:You Hydrogen People by flyinwhitey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The only thing hydrogen is good for is to reduce emissions from the vehicles themselves, but you only end up pushing the pollution to power generating stations, which we'll need a lot more of if the 'hydrogen economy' takes off."

    And which are signifcantly more efficient than masses of cars spewing less refined emissions, especially nuclear plants.

    Essentially your post says "punish auto owners, and reward mass transit users" while completely ignoring the fact that mass transit is impractical in many places and always will be.

    --
    How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
  10. Re:It hardly reclaims 80% of the energy by Guppy06 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The power curve put out by an internal combustion engine isn't linear; it prefers to stay at a particular range of RPMs for maximum efficiency. This is why cars have transmisisons to change gears, trying to keep the engine at that preferred RPM range no matter what RPM the wheels are turning at.

    Electical motors, on the other hand, are linear: turn up the juice, and the thing turns faster.

    The philosophy of using a diesel with electric drive is to keep the diesel engine turning at exactly the right RPMs to maximize efficiency, supplying power to the electrical drive as needed. This way, the locomotive gets the same efficiency moving slowly as it does at speed (as opposed to cars, which would really rather be in 5th gear going 80 km/h).

  11. Re:Don't you just love /. engineers by Slickus+Nickus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    >To complex? Compared to what? This is a BMW not some american car. Germans may suck as human beings >but they know how to make cars. Cars that actually just bloody work instead of needing to be fixed >every ten miles.

    I beg to differ. Do you own a recent vintage BMW? I'm talking about electrical gremilins that will make you pull your hair out. Don't even get me started on VW - disintegrating interior trim, broken window regulators, failing inginition packs. . . etc. etc. Even Mercedes is having a hard time with reliability issues these days.

    Germans do make cars that are a hoot to drive, but they sure as hell aren't as reliable as you think.

  12. Re:It hardly reclaims 80% of the energy by Gldm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well you're assuming we'd keep the design of the gasoline engine similar. If we start using the idea of electricity as a virtual transmission then it's possible to make gains.

    Consider a redesign of the combustion engine that has just cylinders that use 2 a modified 2 stroke compression cycle on each end, and just move the cylinder in a tube that has an electric coil. Put a magnet in the middle and you can transmit power without needing to connect the cylinder to any mechanical transfer system. It'll produce a pretty standard AC sine-wave, and because there's no direct mechanical coupling it can run at optimal efficiency or power rates instead of having to deal with constant acceleration/deceleration. You could even shut down and power up individual cylinders on demand, and since there's no mechanical connections, using say, dozens or hundreds of smaller cylinders for better efficiency and more flexible power would be possible.

    On the electric side, motors have far better low end torque, and less moving parts overall. If you did the design right you might even be able to eliminate the mechanical transmission for different gears completely. Not having mechanical transfer means you can easily do things like 1 motor per wheel directly coupled. This would again provide more robust redundancy, better efficiency, scalability (only run 2 motors when needed i.e. highway driving), better driving properties (full time all-wheel drive), etc.

    Granted you're still going gas->motion->electricity->motion, but you're not replacing just gas->motion. You're replacing gas->several thousand moving parts with friction losses and failure rates->motion with gas->electricity->maybe a couple dozen parts->motion. The removal of the complex mechanical transfer system is where you'll get the efficiency AND reliability boost. But that would make cars last for 20 years, and nobody wants that, right?

    --

    Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!