Hydrogen BMW 7 on horizon
- Thread starter EmeraldTDI
- Start date
GoFaster
Moderator at Large
... and where is the hydrogen to fuel said beast going to come from? Steam reformed from natural gas, thus making the whole process less efficient than using fossil fuel directly?
VWannabe
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 1999
- Location
- Lawrenceville, GA USA
...followed shortly by a mushroom shaped cloud as said BMW explodes in spectacular fashion, as hydrogen makes a better bomb fuel than an automotive one.
GaGolfSup
Veteran Member
Hydrogen can be obtained from water. Granted you have to have electricity, but the electricity could be generated from clean sources ie hydroelectric, solar, or wind. Hydrogen is not a perfect solution right now, but there is no reason to summarily dismiss it. We need to work with many alternatives.
GoFaster
Moderator at Large
I don't "summarily" dismiss it. I've done enough and seen enough to come to ghis very definite conclusion based on sound thermodynamic and financial principles.
The trouble is that as long as SOME of our electricity is coming from conventional sources, then the extra demand on the electrical grid will be fulfilled using fossil fuel, and we will burn a lot more fossil fuel that way instead of using it directly in vehicles. Every energy-conversion step involves losses, so the fewer conversions, the better off you are.
Hydrogen is currently not produced using electrolysis on an industrial scale. It's too expensive (because it uses too much electricity). Steam reforming from natural gas is the way it's done, it's less expensive because it's more efficient. But if the fuel is to be used in a vehicle, it's less expensive (and uses less fossil fuel and emits less CO2) to simply use it directly!
Furthermore, the province of Ontario is trying desparately to eliminate coal-burning power plants and replace them with renewable, or at least non-CO2-emitting (i.e. nuclear), sources. Good goal. It's not going to happen in the timeframe originally allotted, but good goal nevertheless. If hydrogen were to be produced by electrolysis on a large scale, where is the extra power going to come from? Guess what, they would have to put the coal plants back in operation, and those emit more CO2 per kilowatt produced than any other fuel!
What if you make a dedicated renewable-source power plant dedicated to hydrogen production? The economics and the CO2 emissions are both better if you take that electricity and simply feed it into the national power grid. The total CO2 emissions will be less by doing it this way, too. Any electricity generated this way can displace a coal-fired power plant. If you do the energy balance, 1 kW fed into the grid can displace about 2.5 kW worth of burning fuel that causes CO2 emissions (based on 40% plant efficiency). But if you go the hydrogen route, it displaces considerably less than 1 kW of fossil fuel due to the inefficiencies.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: AFTER we have converted the entire electricity generation base load over to renewable, or at least non-CO2-emitting, sources, and we have a *surplus* of renewable source electricity, ONLY THEN does hydrogen make sense to use in vehicles. Until then, it will *always* be more efficient, when you consider the WHOLE SYSTEM, to use some other fuel for vehicles (and biodiesel would be one suitable choice).
I am convinced that enough research has been done right now, that if some miracle source happened on the production side of hydrogen, our society would have NO TROUBLE finding a use for it. The money currently being spent on finding ways to *use* hydrogen would be better spent building windmills. Or tidal power plants, or whatever. And on retrofitting every building in the country to trim heating and lighting usage to the bare minimum.
The trouble is that as long as SOME of our electricity is coming from conventional sources, then the extra demand on the electrical grid will be fulfilled using fossil fuel, and we will burn a lot more fossil fuel that way instead of using it directly in vehicles. Every energy-conversion step involves losses, so the fewer conversions, the better off you are.
Hydrogen is currently not produced using electrolysis on an industrial scale. It's too expensive (because it uses too much electricity). Steam reforming from natural gas is the way it's done, it's less expensive because it's more efficient. But if the fuel is to be used in a vehicle, it's less expensive (and uses less fossil fuel and emits less CO2) to simply use it directly!
Furthermore, the province of Ontario is trying desparately to eliminate coal-burning power plants and replace them with renewable, or at least non-CO2-emitting (i.e. nuclear), sources. Good goal. It's not going to happen in the timeframe originally allotted, but good goal nevertheless. If hydrogen were to be produced by electrolysis on a large scale, where is the extra power going to come from? Guess what, they would have to put the coal plants back in operation, and those emit more CO2 per kilowatt produced than any other fuel!
What if you make a dedicated renewable-source power plant dedicated to hydrogen production? The economics and the CO2 emissions are both better if you take that electricity and simply feed it into the national power grid. The total CO2 emissions will be less by doing it this way, too. Any electricity generated this way can displace a coal-fired power plant. If you do the energy balance, 1 kW fed into the grid can displace about 2.5 kW worth of burning fuel that causes CO2 emissions (based on 40% plant efficiency). But if you go the hydrogen route, it displaces considerably less than 1 kW of fossil fuel due to the inefficiencies.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: AFTER we have converted the entire electricity generation base load over to renewable, or at least non-CO2-emitting, sources, and we have a *surplus* of renewable source electricity, ONLY THEN does hydrogen make sense to use in vehicles. Until then, it will *always* be more efficient, when you consider the WHOLE SYSTEM, to use some other fuel for vehicles (and biodiesel would be one suitable choice).
I am convinced that enough research has been done right now, that if some miracle source happened on the production side of hydrogen, our society would have NO TROUBLE finding a use for it. The money currently being spent on finding ways to *use* hydrogen would be better spent building windmills. Or tidal power plants, or whatever. And on retrofitting every building in the country to trim heating and lighting usage to the bare minimum.
GaGolfSup
Veteran Member
Points well taken. I agree the research should be on how to efficiently produce hydrogen rather than on ways to use it.
gtveloce
Veteran Member
I remember reading an article on BMW 7-series running on Hydrogen back in 1980s, talking about it will be in mass production in a few years... and that was an E23 (correct me if I am wrong) - about 25 years ago??
How long do we have to wait??
How long do we have to wait??
Last edited:
GoFaster
Moderator at Large
"Hydrogen is the fuel of the future ... and it always will be."
Here's the link to a company's website which offers a solution to getting a cheap source of hydrogen:
http://www.millenniumcell.com
Their process is designed to provide hydrogen for fuel cells, be it in vehicles or in batteries. BMW has an engine which will use pure hydrogen in its combustion chamber. I don't think millenniumcell's process is meant to provide quite that much hydrogen. But even so, the point I'm making is that a source of cheap hydrogen is available given this company's technology.
http://www.millenniumcell.com
Their process is designed to provide hydrogen for fuel cells, be it in vehicles or in batteries. BMW has an engine which will use pure hydrogen in its combustion chamber. I don't think millenniumcell's process is meant to provide quite that much hydrogen. But even so, the point I'm making is that a source of cheap hydrogen is available given this company's technology.
GoFaster
Moderator at Large
You misunderstood their website. They are talking about "fuel cells". Their "hydrogen battery" is different terminology for what is more commonly called a "fuel cell". It is not something to PRODUCE hydrogen. It is something that USES hydrogen and produces electricity. Fuel cells don't solve the underlying issues in the slightest. Their real-world efficiency, considering the whole vehicle and not just the cell under ideal conditions, is not significantly different from better internal-combustion engines.
Next ...
Next ...
Try reading through their whole website. Although they feature the batteries at the beginning, it's their "hydrogen on demand" system which is the key of their technology. It's a way of extracting hydrogen from essentially borox, the laundry detergent, for use in fuel cells.
GoFaster
Moderator at Large
You're making the same mistake countless others are making: failure to consider the entire system, including the method of production and all of its inputs traced all the way back to the root source. Websites like that are not helping matters, because it is not in the interest of those promoting that apparatus to reveal the whole scenario, and the average person believes what they are told without questioning it enough (and most people don't have the technical background to even know the right questions to ask).
Sodium borohydride (sp?) is not a *source* of hydrogen. It is only a method of STORING hydrogen. Indeed, it is a chemical compound related to borox, but manufacturing sodium borohydride is an extremely energy-intensive process that consumes more energy than is available from the end product. Once again, it is a losing game.
Next ...
Sodium borohydride (sp?) is not a *source* of hydrogen. It is only a method of STORING hydrogen. Indeed, it is a chemical compound related to borox, but manufacturing sodium borohydride is an extremely energy-intensive process that consumes more energy than is available from the end product. Once again, it is a losing game.
Next ...
MrMopar
Top Post Dawg
Years ago (say late 1990s) Chrysler demonstrated a minivan using this technology. It was by far the most impressive hydrogen fuel cell vehicle - it had an outstanding range of about 350 miles if I remember correctly.JamesBa said:
Like everything, there has to be a downside. The problem with their borax fuel is that there wasn't an easy or energy efficient process for rejuvenating the fuel after it was used.
I think Hydrogen fuel cells have a future in powering apartment and commercial buildings, etc. but feel that affordable, mainstream commercially available hydrogen powered cars are a hell of a long way off.
I recall the case a few years ago of a small leak in a tanker making a delivery to Ballard Power here in Burnaby. A whole industrial park as well as surrounding residences had to be evacuated for a whole day due to the threat of a catastrophic explosion. I'd be willing to bet that hydrogen powered vehicles in showrooms and parked in front of Starbucks are at least 15-20 years away, if they ever become mainstream at all. The energy required to create hydrogen, mostly electricity generated from coal and natural gas, in enough quantity renders the whole idea a little pointless to begin with. I'd like to think it would be here tomorrow myself but the whole concept has some serious issues to overcome.
I recall the case a few years ago of a small leak in a tanker making a delivery to Ballard Power here in Burnaby. A whole industrial park as well as surrounding residences had to be evacuated for a whole day due to the threat of a catastrophic explosion. I'd be willing to bet that hydrogen powered vehicles in showrooms and parked in front of Starbucks are at least 15-20 years away, if they ever become mainstream at all. The energy required to create hydrogen, mostly electricity generated from coal and natural gas, in enough quantity renders the whole idea a little pointless to begin with. I'd like to think it would be here tomorrow myself but the whole concept has some serious issues to overcome.
GoFaster
Moderator at Large
The trouble with fueling apartment and commercial buildings using fuel cells is that again, it's more efficient to feed the electricity off the power grid without going through the hydrogen step!WDM said:
Fuel cells with natural gas as a fuel source might be plausible, if the efficiency is higher than using the natural gas at a central power station ... but the ideal is to have central power generated using renewable sources (windmills, tidal power, etc). If you're going to use distributed electricity sources, then it's better yet to put solar cells on the roof and a bank of batteries in the basement ... although currently it costs too much.