BMW's Christoph Huss says hydrogen is still the long-term answer
When Margo Oge, director of the EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality, mentioned that ethanol production is way past the governments mandates, this article says that Cristoph Huss, BMW senior vice president for science and traffic policy, shook his head. He suggests that BMW still sees hydrogen as the long-term answer to the automotive problems of emissions and energy needs. This, despite the fact that U.S. consumers are shifting more towards renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. Perhaps this is because the hydrogen economy is very far off, while biofuels are here and now. The question could be asked, how long should we wait for hydrogen before exploring our other options? Even if hydrogen does emerge as the best option long-term, should the short-term solutions be ignored?
It should be noted that BMW is working with DaimlerChrysler and GM on hybrid technology and could possibly bring some of their high-output diesels to the U.S. market. Remember, too, that BMW currently offers their dual-fuel Hydrogen 7 which is capable of running its ICE on hydrogen or gasoline.
[Source: Detroit News]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Henry 5:01PM (4/21/2007)
www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2005/03/66998
A 290-horsepower inline 6-cylinder diesel truck engine charges batteries for 2,000-horsepower electric motors!
This causes a 60% drop in fuel consumption from a non-hybrid locomotive. If Prius had this statistic it would do 30mpg/.6 = 70 mpg on the highway.
Why no study of series hybrid for motor vehicles?
Reply
Chris M 9:34PM (4/21/2007)
Quote from Detnews article: "He (Huss) said hydrogen has the advantage of containing more energy than gasoline (ethanol contains less)".
Only by weight. By volume, it's a different matter. H2 compressed to 10,000 psi has only 1/5 the energy per gallon, and liquid H2 has only 1/4 the energy per gallon, compared to gasoline.
Even ethanol outperforms H2 on a volume basis.
The evidence is in BMWs own "Hydrogen 7", that hilariously inept car gets only 4 mpg on liquid H2, but gets 15 mpg on gasoline.
Reply
frank78 11:41PM (4/21/2007)
................Waiting for someone to blame this outlook from BMW to be blamed on either Bush, big oil, or GM. How long before that response comes???
Reply
Scatter 5:44PM (4/22/2007)
Until we have renewable electricity coming out of our ears, hydrogen will not be the solution to our problem of transport emissions. Sadly I can't see this situation arising within the next 20+ years.
Reply
Howard Lee Harkness 10:27PM (4/22/2007)
"The question could be asked, how long should we wait for hydrogen before exploring our other options?"
Don't hold your breath.
Using hydrogen to power a car is insanely stupid.
Cristoph Huss is a good illustration of the principal of an man's inability to understand a concept if his livelihood depends on him not understanding it.
Reply
MikeW 10:43AM (4/23/2007)
Fusion power!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606&q=google+fusion
Reply
johnnash 1:31PM (4/23/2007)
Your wrong Jeremy.
BMW has stated on many accounts that the end goal is a fuel cell vehicle.
They however, believe that rather then gouging the market with false promises of mass production of fuel cell vehicles by 2010, that taking baby steps is a wiser choice. BMW believes that the internal combustion engine which burns hydrogen is a perfect stepping stone as we transition from gasoline to hydrogen...
Reply
Jeremy Korzeniewski 3:07PM (4/23/2007)
johnnash -
What exactly was I wrong about in this particular article?
Reply
Tim 3:45PM (4/23/2007)
frank78- To prove the stupidity of hydrogen, one only needs to blame the laws of physics. Mr. Huss doesn't want to risk his job by admitting that using Hydrogen onboard vehicles is pure lunacy. Hydrogen may make some sense when used as load leveling storage of excess electricity production at the source, but there are better batteries for this purpose. The key here is to maximize efficiency and minimize pollution without wasting $ Trillions of tax dollars and years of valuable time to create an all new infrastructure.
Here are the facts:
http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/h_scam.htm
We know that storing energy in batteries is 4X more efficient than storing it in hydrogen and we know that reforming hydrogen from natural gas costs a fraction of the cost of electrolyzing it from water. Now, where do you think the hydrogen will come from and what will they do with all that Co2 from reformed natural gas?
Over 80% of all car trips are less than 40 miles including the daily commute. This is why the V2G PHEV-40 makes so much sense. The electricity can be produced from multiple sources including your home solar panels and/or “shipped” using the existing infrastructure. Those occasional trips greater than 40 miles can be powered with the efficient “range extender” fueled with biofuels.
Reply