Go go hydrogen powered beemers

ragnar_ii

Diabloii.Net Member
I thought it was unreasable to make a combustion engine run on hydrogen, because you couldnt travel very far with it, due to not being able to carry a lot of fuel. Isnt that one of the reasons they started making fuel cells anyway? And I know there are fuel cells vehicles that can already go just as far on a tank of hydrogen as normal combustion engines can.

And I bet the sound wouldnt change that much. I mean an explosion is an explosion, right?
 

Stoutwood

Diabloii.Net Member
Combustion reactions produce water as well.
2 C(8)H(18) + 25 O2 -------------> 16 CO2 + 18 H20

The big problem with hydrogen-powered cars is that the hydrogen diffuses through the fuel tanks, giving it a shorter range. Advancements in high NC steels could solve this problem in the near future though.
 
dondrei said:
Isn't hydrogen still a fossil fuel?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle

Hydrogen can be obtained from decomposition of methane (natural gas), coal (by a process known as coal gasification), liquified petroleum gas, biomass (biomass gasification), high heat sources (by a process called thermolysis), or from water by electrolysis.
Interesting, because it can be derived from a fossil fuel, does that mean it's a fossil fuel even though it can be generated from non fossil fuels? Surely it's cheaper to get it from water than fossil fuels. A cathode, anode and some electricity, right? Besides the equipment to capture it, etc.
 

Stoutwood

Diabloii.Net Member
The vast majority of H2 is obtained from fossil fuels at the moment. I suppose if hydrogen cars caught on, someone might decide that a solar-powered electrolysis plant might be profitable.
 

dirkdig

Diabloii.Net Member
the sun is hydrogen
and what sucks about this is that we get hydrogen from water, and the hydrogen car outputs water.
Renewable, no?
No. Because we still need large amounts of energy for electrolysis, which means nuclear, oil, coal, etc. power plants. Which doesn't reduce our need on fossil fuels, and doesn't reduce pollution. It just transfers the burden from gasoline cars to power plants.
 
dirkdig said:
the sun is hydrogen
and what sucks about this is that we get hydrogen from water, and the hydrogen car outputs water.
Renewable, no?
No. Because we still need large amounts of energy for electrolysis, which means nuclear, oil, coal, etc. power plants. Which doesn't reduce our need on fossil fuels, and doesn't reduce pollution. It just transfers the burden from gasoline cars to power plants.
It takes huge amounts of energy and water to grow an oak tree, but we say those are renewable.

Electrolysis takes a lot of energy, but solar panels could provide that. Instead of using the deserts for oil why not huge solar panel farms? Cars are also many times less efficient than power plants. So yes it would still bring net usage down.
 

Dondrei

Diabloii.Net Member
I said STILL a fossil fuel because as far as I know it still isn't economical to produce it from anything other than fossil fuels, meaning that emissions from cars will be eliminated but we'll still have the problems of emissions and the finite lifespan of fossil fuels at the power plants.

Basically hydrogen isn't a new fuel, it's a new delivery mechanism. We still have the job of switching to a fully renewable energy source to take care of.

Although I'm interested to see whether electricity or hydrogen will win.

ModeratelyConfused said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle



Interesting, because it can be derived from a fossil fuel, does that mean it's a fossil fuel even though it can be generated from non fossil fuels? Surely it's cheaper to get it from water than fossil fuels. A cathode, anode and some electricity, right? Besides the equipment to capture it, etc.
Ah, but where do you get the electricity from?
 

Dawnmaster

Diabloii.Net Member
Use solar power to generate Electrolysis, use solar power to pump up the water from anywhere.

There you have it, pure water, and pure solar power, doesn't cost a single fossil or whatever, just a big penny.

You can even recuperate the metals used for electrolysis without any effort at all, you can even get more production out of the reversed process.
Hint: car batteries work both ways...
 

Dondrei

Diabloii.Net Member
Yeah, but my point is that this is an aside to the whole issue. We still have to actually switch our power plants to a renewable source.
 

Drosselmeier

Diabloii.Net Member
{KOW}Spazed said:
Electrolysis takes a lot of energy, but solar panels could provide that. Instead of using the deserts for oil why not huge solar panel farms? Cars are also many times less efficient than power plants. So yes it would still bring net usage down.
Both solar panels and hydrogen fuel cell technology are net energy losers. You might as well power the electrolysis via nuclear power. Or better yet, make with the fusion power. NOW!

Dawnmaster said:
Use solar power to generate Electrolysis, use solar power to pump up the water from anywhere.

There you have it, pure water, and pure solar power, doesn't cost a single fossil or whatever, just a big penny.
Doesn't work that way. Net energy losers... You still need another powersource to produce the solar cells to power the pumps and electolysis.

And it's not just a matter of money. If the energy's not there all the money in the world won't help. You need an energy source to set up the machinery and fuel the process. Unless there's a huge leap in effectiveness in the ability of panels to trap energy you'll have to add energy from other sources to keep this thing going. Otherwise ten panels will only produce nine new panels, or three panels and six fuel cells. The numbers in that exqample are unimportant. The point is that this process will not be self-sustaining.

EDIT: Fuel cells aren't even a net energy loser. It's just a battery. What I meant was that electrolysis is a net energy loser.
 

Omikron8

Diabloii.Net Member
why these morons (not talking about you guys) are pushing for a "Hydrogen economy" just baffles me

the vast majority of hydrogen is now obtained either by 1) steam reformation of hydrocarbons 2) coal gasification 3) electrolysis of water

it is sad that there were vast recalls of hybrid cars in the past simply on the whim that oil companies didn't want to lose profits from less people buying regular combustion vehicles

you can generate and use electricity in an automobile a lot easier and simpler than using some highly explosive gas that is extremly hard to liquify and therefore transport, not to mention is leaks through everything

i guess the public is satisfied if they see their politicians doing SOMETHING about the energy crisis even if that solution is horribly wrong and stupid

and every energy process we can use is a "net loser" because of entropy
 

Dawnmaster

Diabloii.Net Member
You don't use a solar power panel once? You can use it for years and years and years and... and you get the idea.

Use whatever resource there is available now, and in a few years, you'll have produced enough solar cells etc for all eternity.
Should a few break or go down or whatever, you can easily use the power from the rest of them to repair or replace them?
 

PatMaGroin

Diabloii.Net Member
masterazn said:
For some reason, this thread did not go where I thought it would. I was focusing on the beemers...
I don't think BMW was trying to be a revolutionary energy saver here, I think they're just trying to show that it can be done.

And I want to say I've heard of hydro-bimmers quite a while ago, although no a 7 series.
 
Top