NASA Tests Hydrogen-Fueled BMW

Rio sends us word that NASA has completed an 8-week test of a fleet of BMW luxury sedans powered by liquid hydrogen at Kennedy Space Center. The new BMW Hydrogen 7 sedan uses the same fuel that powers the space shuttle and reduces CO2 emissions by 90 percent, according to a news release. Its engine can burn gasoline or liquid hydrogen and can switch seamlessly between the two. From the article: "One hundred BMW Hydrogen 7s have been built, and 25 are used in test programs in the US. The cars have already covered more than 1.3 million miles in test programs around the globe."

Re:*boggle*

[FuzzyDaddy]

lox is smoked salmon. Whitefish is something different.

Re:*boggle*

[rah1420]

At the risk of your setting the hook, "LOX" is rocket-speak for liquid oxygen (the oxidizer side of rocket fuel that uses LH2 as the fuel.)

Re:How efficient are they?

[Monkey]

According to the specs on this car, it uses 3.6 kg of hydrogen per 100 km.

Re:emissions

[ben_thompson21]

I think the important thing to remember in all this is that hydrogen is effectively a battery technology and is not a fuel source. The earth has few reserves of hydrogen - it has to be created by electrolysis of water which requires a lot of power. There are other small-scale methods such as fractional distillation of air but I hope you get my point. It's simply weight efficient and cheaper for motor transport to store the energy in hydrogen that can be burned than it is in batteries. Rechargeable lithium ion batteries are expensive and the charging time may be unacceptable.

So the reductions in CO2 rather depend on whether it's more efficient or less polluting to electrolyse water using energy from power stations some of which burn oil, store the hydrogen and burn it than it is to refine oil, store it and burn it.

The emissions at the car may be reduced by 90% but the total emissions will be similar.

Re:How efficient are they?

[Ginger Unicorn]

so that's $7.20 per 100km. Or £3.55 for 62 miles in english. Equivalent in petrol about 62 mpg. That's not bad at all.

Re:How efficient are they?

[Monkey]

And to lamely reply to my own comment, this article [motortrend.com] at Motor Trend has a FAQ about liquid hydrogen in the context of using it to power automobiles.

According TFA, 1 kg of H2 has roughly the same energy content as a gallon of gasoline. The cost per kg is estimated at $3.50 /kg using the natural gas reformation process to create it or $6.50 /kg using electrolysis. This cost is expected to drop if there is widespread adoption of the fuel source.

Re:Internal Combustion!

[LordVader717]

I actually got to talk with someone doing research on hydrogen fuel systems for BMW, and he explained that because so many companies were dependant on making the thousands of parts for the combustion engines, there was a lot of lobbying to steer the research in that direction.

Of course, it's also currently the most viable option, as fuel cell systems are about ten times as expensive, but until we find a way to make the fuel cheap enough, and without emitting even more CO2, they're both moot.

Re:How efficient are they?

[Nerviswreck]

Very Good Point.

When myself and a buddy of mine did a research project on the production of CO2, NOx, SOx, and particulate matter of various H2 production methods using a bunch of DOE data, and if my memory serves me correctly we found that using H2 fuel reduced CO2 emissions by about 15% from the most efficient current form of H2 production (Coal Gassification) as the power transfer through the H2 cells was more efficient that burning gas and the gassification process is more efficient than burning fossil fuels. The greatest impact was on SOx and NOx production which went down about 20%.

Although electrolysis seems great, most of the energy in this country is produced from coal or natural gas, which still puts us in the same situation. The one example I can think of where a large amount of clean energy is produced is in the pacific northwest where a significant amount of energy is produced from hydroelectric generators in dams. The American aluminum industry is based up here in the northwest because of the cheap energy which goes wholly unused at night(as aluminum cannot be smelted, it must be electrolyzed from ore into pure Al). In an area like this H2 could be produced cheaply and with a small ecological footprint. Electrolysis, however, is still a very inefficient manufacture method for H2 production.

Well, I guess the best thing to do is to hope for nuclear fusion to finally reach break-even!

--Nerviswreck

Re:Finally, action movies are vindicated

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, hydrogen is much safer. In case you didn't realize, gasoline is also highly combustible. However, which would you rather have combusting in your car? Gasoline, which will take over and destroy the entire car? Or hydrogen, which is less dense than air and will rise, creating a single vertical pillar of flame, leaving the rest of the car unharmed?

I remember watching a video of the two types of cars burning. The gasoline one didn't make it at all, while the hydrogen one just shot flame for a few seconds and then was through with it.

Re:emissions

[LWATCDR]

Actually most hydrogen is made from natural gas. It is cheaper to split CH4 than H20. What I want to know is how does this reduce CO2 emissions by just 80%? Burning H2 should produce NO Co2 except what was already in the air and what little you might get from burning any free CO or hydrocarbons that are naturally in the atmosphere. Heck I don't know if LH2 is lighter and cheaper than batteries.
While cool I don't expect to see LH2 cars any time soon.

Re:Solution to the H2 problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuclear Power + Electrolysis = Hydrogen Economy

Linky [doe.gov]

Re:We're in the minority

[AKAImBatman]

if it runs on the same fuel as the Space Shuttle, maybe we could expect to go from 0 - 22,350 km/h in about 9 minutes

<pedantic>Technically, the Space Shuttle obtains its MaxQ (maximum velocity inside the atmosphere) thanks to the high thrust-to-weight ratio of the two Solid Fuel Boosters (SRB). The Space Shuttle would go absolutely nowhere if it had to rely solely on the thrust from its LHOx engines.</pedantic>

Distribution

[Lou57]

The only thing that matters is distribution. Where are the hydrogen stations? Consider the real E85 ethanol distribution problems experienced today. For example, New Jersey has more than 100,000 vehicles that can run e85 fuel -- not one station in the entire state. Number of E85 stations [e85refueling.com] by state. Hydrogen is not going to be any different. Don't look JUST for the technology, look pragmatically for the distribution.

Someone earlier mentioned the movie "Who Killed The Electric Car" and I whole-heartedly recommend that you view this if you ever get a chance. Consider the distribution of electricity in this country. Certainly, THAT is a doable technology TODAY!

You might want to watch Tesla Motors [teslamotors.com], although most of us cannot afford their current offering (about $100,000.00), 0-60 mph in 4 seconds with a 200 mile range proves the technology is here. They intend to offer a sedan around the $50k mark in 2008 and a commuter car around $25k in 2009.

Popular Mechanics also test drove the Electric Mini-Cooper [popularmechanics.com] which you can buy today for around $50k.

While a hydrogen powered vehicle might work for rocket scientists, it's essentially worthless to you and me. The longer we ignore VIABLE alternatives and focus on pipe dreams, the longer we will remain dependant on oil.

Re:We're in the minority

[Usquebaugh]

Bullshit

Having driven/ridden on the autobahn at speeds up to 165mph I can tell you the speed differential is not safe. Closing on a car with 80mph speed differential is crazy stupid, passing at that differential is asking for an early grave. Trying to judge if they've seen you are they going to stay in lane, reducing speed just in case. The only safe thing to do is roll off the throttle miles away and pass doing no more than 20mph more and then wind back on the throttle.

Now when the road is empty it's some of the best riding in Europe, hour after hour of very fast riding on immaculate road surfaces. Passing police bikes/cars and not having to worry. Stopping off in small villages for great food and beer. The only times have had anything remotely similar is riding through Nevada and Utah, but still you had to watch out for the revenue generators.

I drove it.

[trout007]

I drove this BMW at KSC. They detuned the engine in gasoline mode so that it has the same hp as in hygrogen mode so you don't notice the shift. Kinda stupid if you ask me. Plus since it stores the hydrogen as a liquid if you leave the car for a week the hydrogen will boil off. MaxQ isn't the maximum velocity inside the athmosphere. It means Maximum Dynamic Pressure. You have two things going on. One is the shuttle is accelerating and climbing. Two as the shuttle climbs the air gets less dense. A simplified explanation of Dynamic Pressure is wind drag. As the air speed increases the drag increases but as you gain altitude and the air becomes less dense the drag goes down. MaxQ is the worst Dynamic Pressure seen by the orbiter and they actually throttle down to keep from exceeding it. Then once it's past they "are go for throttle up".