The future is green. The future's a milk float!

E92

Seriously though, what Honda launched yesterday has the potential to be the fuel of the future, and is widely regarded to indeed be the fuel of the future. And that reality is stepping up agear, with the news that from next year, you will be able to buy the Fuel Cell Honda FCX. It has close enough of a power to weight ratios to a normal family 1.6 petrol saloon. It actually has the the equivalent of a 1.8 petrol in power and a 1.6 diesel in torque.

More details here.

Considering that Honda makes hybrids its ironic that they've chose to make it look like stone age technology after such a short time:p!

Seriously though, we need more cars like the FCX, and fair f**ks to Honda for making it available to the public. Between them and BMW with their Hydrogen 7, its good to see some car makers actually talk the talk and walk the walk.

Calibos

Now if only the Power companies would talk the talk and walk the walk and stop using oil and gas power stations to generate the electricity used to produce the Hydrogen for the cars cause right now the pollution has just stopped coming out of your exhaust pipe and out of a smoke stack of a power station instead. :rolleyes:

And speaking of jumping the gun. We are rushing into turning over valuable food producing land in order to produse bio fuels. ATM the technology is such that it requires more energy usually from dirty polluting sources to produce the fuel than we get out of it!! Its bad enough turning over good food producing land and slash and buring yet more forests for biofuel crops, but we're not actually having a net effect on emmissions! Madness!!

Of course there is no stopping the Enviromental movement, forging blindly ahead instead of waiting for the technologies to advance enough. Loath as I am to say it Bush was Right! Sure he probably only said it to protect his buddy in the oil business but it turns out its probably the best thing to do. ie. Not rush into anything like the joke that is Kyoto, but invest in developing clean energy technologies.

colm_mcm

nice car!

nialler

how hard is it to produce hydrogen? We did it in science 17 years ago. What comes out of your exhaust is water, solves a problem doesn't it. And oil companies have a vested interest in selling OIL, free fuel that gives back to the free fuel, tell me you can't seperate the atoms again. We're gonna need better wet tyres though.

Alun

nialler wrote: »

how hard is it to produce hydrogen? We did it in science 17 years ago.

It isn't 'hard' at all, but it requires electrical energy, and it's a question of where that energy comes from. If it's from an oil- or turf-burning power station, then it's all a bit pointless. Then there are the problems around distributing, storing and dispensing it which, although not insurmountable, aren't easy or cheap to solve either.

colm_mcm

stick a nuclear reactor somewhere!

JHMEG

Honda have the fuel thing thought out too, and needless to say it will get them in trouble with Big Oil if they ever release it onto the mass market. It's the solar powered Home Energy Station. Idea is that you buy one and it sits there quietly in your garden soaking up sunlight and turning it (well, water) into hydrogen.



For the less sunnier climates they have one that turns natural gas into hydrogen.

The FCX is very futuristic in its design, and that's deliberate. The prototypes looked like old Fiat Puntos (that's the arse of one in the pic above).

Unfortunately I can't say BMW's Hydrogen-7 is the way to go. 1st it burns hydrogen in a conventional enough internal combustion engine, which wastes a lot of energy in heat. 2nd, as a result of the 1st, it has a very limited range. 3rd it requires a very large displacement to get any decent amount of power.. 5.0 litres to get 200bhp iirc.

colm_mcm

Wow! another Honda Vs. BMW thread!

JHMEG

colm_mcm wrote: »

Wow! another Honda Vs. BMW thread!

Nah colm, just stating the facts (tho Honda has wiped the floor with BMW on this one:D).

E92

JHMEG wrote: »

Unfortunately I can't say BMW's Hydrogen-7 is the way to go. 1st it burns hydrogen in a conventional enough internal combustion engine, which wastes a lot of energy in heat. 2nd, as a result of the 1st, it has a very limited range. 3rd it requires a very large displacement to get any decent amount of power.. 5.0 litres to get 200bhp iirc.

Its very early days yet, I'm sure BMW will no doubt in time solve the problems. As for the power thing, the Hydrogen7 does 0-100 in 9.5 seconds and is artificially limited to 143 mph(which is 230 km/h is it not?). Which is more than can be said for the Honda FCX. No doubt Honda will be able to improve on this in due course.

But I take the point, the Hydrogen 7 produces less power than the 760Li, around 349 bhp(as opposed to 444 bhp). I don't know about fuel consumption, but Wikipedia says it will average 16.6 km/l which is over 45 mpg I think(I thought iut was lower but there you go!). And they did invent turbos for a reason you know! All they've got to do is stick a turbo on, and problem solved!

The issue of Hydrogen 'disappering' over time will affect both cars surley, after all they're both running on the stuff, and if not why not?

The beauty of the BMW is that it is essentially a petrol engine, just modified to be able to run on hydrogen, thats all. All the benefits of current petrol engines, without the enviornmental drawbacks(at least in theory, it depends on where you get the hydrogen from, but that affects the Honda too). I mean people will still be able to drive cars that will raise your pulse and make the wonderful sounds only a petrol engine can make. I see that as being able to have your cake and eat it. There will still be that glorious straight 6 or V8 or your own favourite the 4 pot to listen to!

Of course there are a lot of hurdles to be overcome, but no doubt just like the way we have those flat panel TVs and mobile phones which are getting smaller by the minute, I don't think it is beyond the bounds of possibility that the present problems with Hydrogen won't be solved.

In fact I know they will, they always manage to in the end.

JHMEG

I'm pretty sure that wikipedia article is wrong, and that the BMW does not use fuel cells.

From Der Speigel's article: BMW'S HYDROGEN 7: Not as Green as it Seems
"With the exception of BMW, every car company out there is betting on a different technology: fuel cells"

From the BBC:
"Unlike rival hydrogen models in the making, which use fuel cells, the BMW Hydrogen 7 is kitted out with a conventional combustion engine that can also run on petrol."
(A serious mistake IMHO, which BMW will regret)

From Hydrogen Cars Now:
"Unlike other hydrogen cars, which are powered by fuel cells, the Hydrogen 7 is powered by a 12-cylinder internal combustion engine (ICE). "

The BMW would require two completely seperate drive trains to be able to use Hydrogen in a conventional internal combustion engine or via a fuel cell/electric motor arrangement.

A quick google shows that it only does 17mpg:eek: (15 US mpg), whereas the Honda does 81mpg:eek:. That's not having your cake and eating it: that's having full fat double cream intravenously fed, washed down with a mouthful of lard.

[EDIT: btw, lots of maufacturers have demonstrated hydrogen burning conventional cars. Eg Mazda with the hydrogen powered RX-8]

E92

JHMEG wrote: »

I'm pretty sure...that the BMW does not use fuel cells.

It sure doesn't. See my previous post. Though the Wikipedia says it runs on both I know, which is wrong.

JHMEG wrote:

From Der Speigel's article: BMW'S HYDROGEN 7: Not as Green as it Seems

Well the technology like all new technologies is flawed at the moment, but the purpose of dual fuel is surley to do with the present problem we have - where are you going to fill up the car with Hydrogen? As I said in my previous post, there are problems(I'm not denying that there are problems at the moment) which no doubt will be solved in time.
Just look at the internal combustion engine, who would have thought even 3 or 4 years ago that you could now buy a diesel with more than 100 bhp per litre(like the BMW 123d)? 20 years ago the BMW 324td had not even half the specific output of the 123d(and FWIW the 324td was the fastest diesel on sale at the time, of course we never got it but it doesnm't change the fact that it was the fastest diesel on sale in 1987).

JHMEG wrote:

A quick google shows that does 18 mpg (15 US mpg).

Thats more like what I thought it did! Still cleaner than anything else when on Hydrogen bar a Hydrogen car itself of course(with the usual caveats of course). As for the Honda, surley you haven't forgotten the laws of Physics? FWIW the Honda has 134 bhp(as opposed to the BMW's 300+ bhp), is much smaller and lighter and all that. And BMW chose to showcase the technology in a V12, V12s are hardly the epitone of fuel efficieny now are they? Okay I know 81 mpg is not to be sniffed at, but its hardly a fair comparison.

However, Wikipedia begs to differ with your 81 mpg. FromWikipedia: This is achieved by allowing the gas to flow vertically in the fuel cell stack. The tanks can store up to 5 kg (171 litres) of hydrogen at a pressure of 350 atmospheres, thanks to the new hydrogen absorption materials used. This allows a longer range of up to 350miles (570 km).

Now 350 miles and 171 litres gives me 2.05 miles per litre which turns out to be around 9.2 mpg(1 gal = 4.5 l)

JHMEG

As already demonstrated, wikipedia isn't always accurate. 81mpg is from Honda's own press material.

As for ironing out bugs in new technology, I'm sorry, but burning fuel is not new, and BMW have made a seriously bad choice by ignoring fuel cells. Hats off to them wrt EfficientDynamics etc (assuming it works reliably, which I'm not convinced it will, but here's hoping), but they've made a serious error of judgement on this one. We're burning oil like it's going out of fashion... treating hydrogen in the same way is not cool.

McSandwich

How much do they cost? Can't find a price for one anywhere - must be bad!

Stephen

I got a "magazine" in the post from Universal Honda during the week, pimping the FCX as well as the rest of their range of regular internal combustion cars. The pictures used were of an older version of it that had Civic-like wraparound front lights. Great timing eh?

That home-fuel solar-powered system is a great idea. Not so good for here with our lack of sunshine and all but still very clever. Just top her up at home every night with fuel that costs you nothing... until the bastards start charging for running water!

_Kaiser_

colm_mcm wrote: »

nice car!

Not bad .. looks a bit like a streamlined Primera to me.

Gegerty

Calibos wrote: »

Now if only the Power companies would talk the talk and walk the walk and stop using oil and gas power stations to generate the electricity used to produce the Hydrogen for the cars cause right now the pollution has just stopped coming out of your exhaust pipe and out of a smoke stack of a power station instead. :rolleyes:

Don't quote this figure but I heard somewhere that we import about 30% of our electricity from UK nuclear power plants. Also some people may be able to sign up for airtricity.

Can biofuels be made out of food waste? Like back to the future we should be putting last nights dinner waste in our cars :-)

Alun

Gegerty wrote: »

Can biofuels be made out of food waste?

The bioethanol Maxol uses is made using waste products from the dairy industry .. cheese production mainly IIRC.

JHMEG

Holy crap. Just read that Der Spiegel article again. The BMW does 5.5 mpg when running on hydrogen.:eek: A few select quotes from the article:

"In other words, BMW has created an energy-guzzling engine"

"the new car puts about as much strain on the environment as a heavy truck with a diesel engine."

"The environment isn't the only loser: Customers will also have to shell out a lot of money for their deceptive display of ecologically responsible driving. The current standard price for liquid hydrogen is 57 euro cents per litre. And the price tag on a 62 mile drive in the Hydrogen 7, at a comfortable speed, is about €30"

30 euro to drive 60 miles. Fook!

cantdecide

Calibos wrote: »

.....pollution has just stopped coming out of your exhaust pipe and out of a smoke stack of a power station instead. :rolleyes:....

Is there any figures for this? I'm interested to know how much CO2 is attributed to your car by using oil/ gas power stations to make hydrogen. It's hardly a like-for-like trade-off, is it?

Turbulent Bill

cantdecide wrote: »

Is there any figures for this? I'm interested to know how much CO2 is attributed to your car by using oil/ gas power stations to make hydrogen. It's hardly a like-for-like trade-off, is it?

I'd imagine you'd get some economies of scale by generating in one place rather than consuming fuel in each car. Power stations don't have to operate in stop-start traffic .

cantdecide

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

I'd imagine you'd get some economies of scale by generating in one place rather than consuming fuel in each car. Power stations don't have to operate in stop-start traffic .

Turbulent Bill, you just say what I'm thinking. My original question is how many mpg does a power sation get:D

Anan1

Does hydrogen even need to be made in a central refinery and distributed like petrol? Would it be possible, for example, for each service station to produce its own hydrogen using electricity from the mains grid? Or could this even be done at home?

Tails142

JHMEG wrote: »

As already demonstrated, wikipedia isn't always accurate. 81mpg is from Honda's own press material.

As for ironing out bugs in new technology, I'm sorry, but burning fuel is not new, and BMW have made a seriously bad choice by ignoring fuel cells. Hats off to them wrt EfficientDynamics etc (assuming it works reliably, which I'm not convinced it will, but here's hoping), but they've made a serious error of judgement on this one. We're burning oil like it's going out of fashion... treating hydrogen in the same way is not cool.

Hydrogen is one of the most plentiful elements in the universe.

75% of the known universe consists of Hyrdogen... I think we can burn it as much as we like.

Anan1

Tails142 wrote: »

75% of the known universe consists of Hyrdogen...

You're not including such relatively inaccessable places as the Sun in that, are you?

Tails142

Well, maybe some day we'll be able to drive there in our V12 BMW's


Solar and Wind energy can be used to create limitless hydrogen through electrolysis. Whether at home individually, or in more efficient central plants. I think it makes sense to make an enjoyable and fun driving experience as ultimately it will be more beneficial than a conservative approach. We dont really need to conserve something that is almost limitless do we?

E92

Tails142 wrote: »

75% of the known universe consists of Hyrdogen... I think we can burn it as much as we like.

yes. Unlike oil it is renewable so we can use it as often as we want and no harm done to the planet. Also unlike oil theres no problem if we waste it, we can find some more and so what. Where Der Spiegel got the idea that it somehow is worse for the enviornment than a large truck is a mystery to me because its absolute rubbish.

anyone who did a bit of Science in school will know that water consists of both hydrogen and oxygen. They're in a ratio of 2:1(hence why its called H2O) respectively. There are 9000 cubic metres of water available to use per annum. We only use 3000 m^3 per annum.

As well as solving the problem of the water constantly rising in the world, we would be pputting more oxygen into the world. Someone tell me how that is bad for the planet.

Anan1

I think the problem is that the hydrogen is not just sitting there waiting to be used. You have to invest energy to produce hydrogen. It is the production of hydrogen, rather than its use, that is problematic.

E92

Anan1 wrote: »

I think the problem is that the hydrogen is not just sitting there waiting to be used. You have to invest energy to produce hydrogen. It is the production of hydrogen, rather than its use, that is problematic.

Ah well of course thats a problem, but thats a problem thats affected oil all the time too. So in that sense its nothing new really. That has to be refined so that we can get petrol, diesel, kerosene etc.

Anan1

E92 wrote: »

Ah well of course thats a problem, but thats a problem thats affected oil all the time too. So in that sense its nothing new really. That has to be refined so that we can get petrol, diesel, kerosene etc.

Unfortunately not. The amount of energy needed to refine oil is only a tiny proportion of the energy produced. The amount of energy required to produce hydrogen from water is in principle exactly the same as the amount of energy produced when you use the hydrogen as fuel. In reality, given inefficiencies in the processes, it's more. It will take an enormous amount of energy to produce enough hydrogen to run all our cars.

JHMEG

E92 wrote: »

Also unlike oil theres no problem if we waste it,

There is as it currently costs quite a lot (in a lot of ways) to produce and store hydrogen.

E92 wrote: »

we can find some more and so what.

Unless we start extracting it from outer space, no we can't just find some more. We have to make produce it.

E92 wrote: »

Where Der Spiegel got the idea that it somehow is worse for the enviornment than a large truck is a mystery to me because its absolute rubbish.

:rolleyes:Just cos *you* don't understand it. Read it again. It's all explained.

E92 wrote: »

As well as solving the problem of the water constantly rising in the world, we would be pputting more oxygen into the world. Someone tell me how that is bad for the planet.

Did you actually do science? If you did you would know that increasing the oxygen content in the air is bad. Potentially fatal.

It would be hugely wasteful of hydrogen to use it in that BMW. I'd even put money on it that it would be better for the environment just to run it on petrol.