REVIEW: BMW Hydrogen 7-Series-Are hydrogen cars the ultimate VAPORWARE?

That car is the future! Hydrogen sounds better then electric cars. Well thats what I think

I see Hydrogen as one of the technologies that will survive along with diesel and the trusty old gasoline engine. Hybrid is dead as far as I am concerned. There are still monumental infrastucture poblems to be overcome with the Hydrogen option but I think our society should make the investment even if it means massive government incentives. Now don't all you right-wingers poo poo government incentives -- they are already in place in various forms for defence research and development for example.

"In hydrogen mode the car emits nothing more than water vapour."

The structure of this sentence makes that sound so perfectly benign.

I see by the de-boosting that the idiotic blog Oprichniki have arrived.

Oh yes, de-boost me all you want for attempting to point something out without babying you through it.

Out of necessity therefore I will simply say that I would hope people perform thought experiments: this one is what would happen if all cars produced water vapor. If you believe that the CO2 produced by cars can affect climate on a GLOBAL level, but would insist that injecting massive amounts of water vapor into the atmosphere, which has a direct link to weather, has no effect: you are most likely an idiot plain and simple.

Not all of the possible effects are bad. Possible effects include but are not limited to, the creation of permanent fogs in cities depending on their macro-environment. Increased cloud cover over large cities could decrease the thermal effects induced my man-made buildings. In addition, given the cloud cover is significant enough; it could help mitigate global warming through increased reflection. At certain scales it may induce permanent flooding in certain areas. Environments particularly sensitive to rainfall will be affected the most- deserts most notably. The capacity to damage or destroy these environments exists. Increased snowfall is a possibility as well as increased erosion and freeze thaw fracturing to some extent [water has a very odd volume vs. temperature curve] . All of these are possible, predicated upon the scale of the infusion of water vapor into the atmosphere.

…and it’s “nothing more” than water vapor.

I don’t know why it is, but every time I go home to my parents’ house I seem to be less tolerant to foolishness.

Find said calculations. Prefereably the paper in which they are contained.

Sure the primary source of all precipiation is evaporation from the ocean. The water vapor produced from cars is not distributed in the same manner, however, water in Denver Colorado, which is in a rain shadow, is not the same as water produced at the ocean and falls before it get there. Weather has functionality with geography. And it is a form of scalar problem: but it is a local one NOT a world one. Not a rote percentage is useless: it is not a volumetric problem.

Show me this paper of which you speak.

Oh for crying out loud you pompous "Bill Nye the Science Guy".

Aren't you funny?

I rarely speak without having at least some of my ducks in a row- this situation is no different. This is one of those "I have not yet begun to fight" situations", my dear.

..and don't call me "Bill Nye", such insolence is not endearing.

Ahem...

Scientific American: "As it turns out, water vapor is known to have an impact on regional temperatures...As soon as officials recognized that terrorists had hijacked at least four planes on the morning of September 11, 2001, all commercial air traffic was grounded in the U.S. for three days. The situation provided atmospheric scientists with the unique opportunity to study how the exhaust from all those airplanes affects the weather."

"By looking at the average daily temperature range for September 11- 13, 2001, and comparing that to the average daily temperature range for the same days in September over the last 30 years, climatologists found that the temperature range was about 2 degrees Fahrenheit greater while the planes were grounded. ...jet contrails keep the Earth cooler during the day and warmer during the nights. Although the jet contrails' effect was regional and not global, this study shows how small changes can make measurable differences in the atmosphere. "

Granted, the creation of jet contrails is already is faily high in the atmosphere to begin with.

"Because of the complexity involved in climate modeling, no one can say exactly how transitioning to hydrogen would affect the planet..."

Further, the NAS has issued a report (sci Dev reports): "But the authors warn that the balance at the global level hides strong regional differences... The combined effect, say that authors, is a substantial difference in the distribution of vapour at a global scale compared to what the distribution would have been without human deforestation and irrigation.[2,3] Studies in China have shown the changes to vapour flows within a region can affect the monsoon rains across the region. No one has yet studied the interaction between vapour flows and the climate on a global scale. The authors suggest the interaction could be large, and the implications for food security could be severe... [Gordon] underlines the need to start analysing the role of water vapour flows in the global climate. "We need to see how big an effect this can have on a global scale," she says." [Line Gordon, of the University of Stockholm, Sweden,]

Ultimately, water vapor emissions from a global fleet of fuel cell powered autos may indeed prove to be benign or irrelevant. It would certainly be wonderful to find a important energy technology with little downside. But given the low cost of exploring this topic, it would seem to make good sense to perform a comprehensive technology assessment (argued in the peer-reviewed literature) of fuel cell technologies, before committing to a particular technological or policy path. And any such assessment ought to consider water vapor as well. -Pielke. R. jr.

1. J. P. Piexoto, A. H. Oort, Physics of Climate (American
Institute of Physics, College Park, MD, 1992).
2. T. N. Chase, R. A. Pielke Sr., T. G. F. Kittel, J. S. Baron, T.
J. Stohlgren, J. Geophys. Res. 104, 16673 (1999).

That latter, by Pielke was a further response by him to a letter he and some colleges of his wrote to Science. They are with the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder.

I, myself, am less inclined to argue for global climate changes- instead the possiblyity of local climate mocdification. Sciences response did mention the anticipated absolute magnitude problem similar to yours on a global scale. But do agree that it is exceptionally important to examine the problem. They cite anthropogenic origination through combustion at 10^5 times smaller in volume than the natural hydrologic cycle. However, recognizing that this makes an exceptoinally erroneous assumption- it is a global average it assumes constant and even distribution; both they and I know enough about meteorology to know that systemic distribution of water vapor, much less these anthropegenic sources is neither even nor constant.

It is entirely possible that relative to land use effects that the creation of hydrogen from anthropogenic combustion will have little effect relative to land use. It is acknowledged that ICE usage does indirectly generate water vapor, but all of these papers and thoughts cite what they beleive to be a possibly significant increase over this amount.

This is why I listed possiblities- this problem has not really been studied effectively.

...and by "local" I do not mean the effect occurs exactly where the source is. Local relative to global- which at times could extand to regional plus. Such things are predicated upon the geography, wind patterns, temperature differentials et alia.

BTW, the Germans have known how to run cars on combustible gas for over half a century. Toward the end of WW2 when gaoline supplies became extremely scrace, many trucks hitched up a trailer on which wood was heated (by burning coal or wood) to the point where it decomposed into gas which was piped into the engine to allow the truck to run.

"And eventually, hydrogen production will be done exclusively by splitting water (either via electrolysis, algea or another technology) meaning that the extra water that might come out of the sky, will just make up for the water used by the cars...".

The electrolysis option is just retarded. Using the electric energy directly would be several times more effective, immensely cheaper and all components are readily available today.

While I know little about the algae and such, I doubt that there wouldn't be some microorganisms that can produce methane a lot cheaper than hydrogen. With methane, again, all necessary technology is already available, less complex, cheaper and a lot safer.

So, yes, it's probably just vaporware!

--->huu76 why look at North America? The pigs (sorry guys) in the united states dont know anything about energy saving or maybee they dont care. I live en Europe most cars are small to medium with diesel engines or small 4 cylinder engines. In the US yes i have been there, they drive in big cars, V8 engines trucks and that sort of cars. Nothing that do good things for the environment. BMW a small car manufactur are at least trying to find a way to make less polution.

by the way i am from Denmark, here we get 20-25% of our energi to electricity from windmills. What about the us? they have this big land areas where they could make windmills parks, and in the dessert maybee something wiht solar power. Think of the energy used in Las Vegas, LA, San Fransisco and New York, i mention thos places becaus i have been there, and know them.

Huu, you are a joke. Your comments crank me up every time I read them.

USA is the best, right?


tosser..

Hydrogen only usefull if you use it in a fuel cell and convert it into electricity.

1 kg of hydrogen has about the same energy as a gallon of gasoline. 125/8=15.625 mpg. Nothing great here.

Q: Where do we get hydrogen from?

A: Methane. (Natural Gas) Which is a fossil fuel. Which comes from the same general places as oil. And converting natural gas to hydrogen is only 70% energy efficient.

huu76 sounds like Germany is doing nothing for the environment, but the the truth is, Germany reduced their emissions by nearly 16 percent between 1990 and 2005.
An example of doing, rather than just talking.
And by the way, between 1990 and 2005 U.S. greenhouse emissions increased 16%.

All this noise and no mention of the sorry naught to 60 acceleration?

SoCal, shut it.

Still awaiting his reply.

..."US economy is about 10 trillion in size."

$12.98 GDP, PPP to be specific.

Well aren't you nice?

I've noticed you can't spell to save yourself.

I guess that intelligence and human beings do not automatically go hand-in-hand.

Or maybe I'm expecting to much from someone still in junior high? You tell me.

"BMW is stupid for coming out with a hydrogen car that will probably never run on hydrogen. They found a way to make it less efficient by adding the gas tank and making it a V12. Congrats."

huu you are so amazing! When talking about the useless LS600h you stay mentioning how useful and brilliant it is even though it is even more useless than the hydrogen 7. Keep it up! HYPOCRITE.

huu76: I've posted already that the Europeans will not meet the Kyoto accord targets because all but 1 country is increasing emissions.
You´re right huu,like the US the Europeans will not meet the Kyoto accord targets. I just said that Germany reduced their emissions.

And SoCaL. The Scandinavian countries have the best schools in the world.

You really love yourself do you?

huu76, for a bloke approaching 31 (if 76 in your nick is refering to your date of birth or the grams in Co2 you emit every time you fart) you really have to start enjoying cars and quit wining. It's just hilarious.

Personally I couldn't care less how much CO2 I emit. Hell I love driving fast cars too much to start nagging about it.

Best performance AND best emmisions?

You don't love cars. You just like to annoye people.

And for the record, my upcoming CL is the second German car I have EVER bought. All of my previous cars were Italian, French, British or Japanese (my first car was a Toyota Carina EL by the way! guess what? they still use that very same cheap looking digital clock from the future in their current line-up!

I buy a car with my heart and soul. I don't give a damn about friggin' emissions.

The EU likes Sarkozy - he's actually doing something to reduce French laziness, as they are a very lazy people. Everything closes on Mondays, it's ridiculous.

Love your sense of humour Rupert!

Well it's true!
Shops shut at 12:30, open again at like 4, all closed on Mondays because of stupid French employment law, which means 35 hour weeks maximum, and security of employment! So companies hate employing young people in case they're bad, because they can't sack them! That's why unemployment is at like 10% or something ridiculous. I am seriously glad Sarkozy won, he might actually do something to bring France out of the 1930s.
The French riot far to much, (they rioted when they elected a new president..) but you know how you always see burning cars in the riots? They didn't set fire to them, French cars just do that, randomly.

That was a cheap shot Rupert.

While the French continue to pioneer diesel technology and produce emotionally stirring cars, the English are still figuring out how building cars with metal tubing and glass fibre could go so wrong....

The French are just passionate people. The new generation of English are chavvy, vulgar, and cnt speel rite coz its cool 2 speel bad, the fit babes digg it.

France vs England. I like them both equally as much.

France gave us the supermini and the MPV, the Brits gave us the sportscar and Landrover.

France cares about France, they don't really give a damn what happens abroad.
And Mr Sarkozy has explicitly said he won't support America's foreign policy.

Hydrogen fuel cell cars which employ the hydrogen power as one part of a total hybrid system are the future. So when the car has enough power in the hybrid electric motors and batteries it will run on electricity but when it needs power, the hydrogen fuel cells will take over and give the system power in the same way as petrol does in todays petrol hybrid cars. Toyota has a fleet of thirty of these testing in Japan at the moment worth £500000 each and is waiting until the technology is perfected adn a hydrogen re-filling infrastructure is in place.

"Look, what I'm trying to point out here is that people are making a fuzz over something that no one can actually prove."

Listen, I'll be the first to acknowldge that gleaning any useful information about the magnitude of an effect is exceptionally difficult. That does not mean that it shouldn't be fully studied- that is just due dilligence. There is a laudary list of possilbities- but that is all they are at the moment. Maybe it is a waste of money in the end, maybe not.

Please excuse any typos- I hate this damned wireless keyboard.

Educated folks look upon the "hydrogen as a fuel" concept as a pipe dream, until we can harvest hydrogen and convert it into a usable form, cleanly, and economically.

In other words, for the naively optimistic, hydrogen-powered vehicles do not have a viable fuel supply at this time. And those who are betting on it, are employing "hope as a strategy" (i.e., I hope we get lucky and someone discovers a cheap, clean way to harvest and convert massive quantities of hydrogen so we can use it as har fuel).

But it's the vogue thing to do, so keep on keepin' on, BMW.