Editorial: More on BMW, ethanol, hydrogen and hybrids
Earlier Jeremy wrote a post referencing a Detroit News article about a panel discussion on Policies and Issues Affecting Consumer Choices of Vehicles and Fuels at the SAE World Congress in Detroit. I attended that discussion along with several others and wanted to share my own thoughts on it. One consistent theme amongst most of the car-maker representatives on the various panels was that there is no silver bullet that will solve the problems we face. Our future will include a diverse array of fuels and energy sources and drive systems, although the consensus seemed to be that the drive systems will migrate toward electrification.
The notable exception to this seemed to be BMW. In spite of their involvement in both the two-mode and mild hybrid systems with DaimlerChrysler and GM, they seemed to be lukewarm to hybrids. Given the actual real world benefits of parallel hybrids, this may not actually be such a bad position. Instead, short term, they seem more interested in start-stop systems and electrification of accessory drives combined with some limited regen braking capability. These systems are being introduced this year on the 1, 3 and 5 series models. The full hybrid systems won't be coming for another 2-3 years at the earliest.
Continue reading after the jump.
BMW has already committed to bringing their diesel engines to the US market by next year in at least the X5 and the 5-series. Presumably it will be biodiesel-compatible as all other modern diesels are. BMW has not really said much of anything publicly about ethanol even for their new turbocharged engines. From a performance perspective, which seems to be BMW's priority, the turbos could definitely benefit from ethanol's higher octane, but the Munich company seems to have no interest in that fuel. Again this may not be such a bad thing at least with current ethanol production methods which consume a lot of food crops and water.
Now on the subject of hydrogen, Christoph Huss did extol the virtues of hydrogen as a fuel. Leaving aside for the moment the whole question of whether hydrogen will ever be a viable energy carrier, there are other problems with BMW's stance. BMW is focusing on internal combustion engines fueled by liquid hydrogen. Again here BMW diverges from most other car-makers. Ford has a side project with hydrogen fueled shuttle buses that they are supplying to some airports for moving people around and Mazda has an ongoing development project with Wankel rotary in the RX-8 fueled by hydrogen.
Ford's main hydrogen focus is on fuel cells, particularly the series hybrid configuration they showed in the Airstream concept and the HySeries Edge that garnered some unfortunate attention recently. Ford, Mazda and everyone else working with hydrogen are all using gaseous hydrogen right now with research being done on solid state hydrogen storage. BMW is alone using liquid hydrogen. I asked the question of Dr. Huss why they were using liquid instead of gaseous hydrogen and his response was that liquid had twice the energy density of gaseous hydrogen. The problem is that liquid has to be stored in cryogenic tanks to keep it in liquid form.
Even with all the insulation, it still boils off and has to be vented from the tank. BMW has acknowledged that a tank of fuel in the Hydrogen 7 will boil off in about a week, meaning that if you fill one up and park it for a week it will be almost empty when you come back to it. This alone seems like a good reason not to bother. BMW has not indicated any interest in either gaseous hydrogen, which does not have this problem, or fuel cells.
The lack of interest in fuel cells may be related to the fact that BMW seems to have no interest in electric drivetrains. The German carmaker is apparently only interested in various internal combustion engines as the driving the wheels, perhaps with some electric assist, but nothing akin to a Chevy Volt, Ford Airstream or Tesla Roadster. While I enjoy driving BMWs, I think their single-mindedness on this subject is a mistake. Instead of creating still more vehicles in more market niches, BMW might want to consider refocusing their resources on other options. Even if hydrogen does become viable, I sincerely doubt that BMW's approach will be a winner.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
PeakVT 7:49PM (4/29/2007)
BMW is a high-end manufacturer that is very good at building powerful engines mounted in expensive cars. It will not eagerly switch to lower performing drivetrains because it is wedded to selling the conspicuous consumption that powerful, expensive cars represent. BMW almost certainly could engineer an efficient car like the Chevy Volt could be, but why would it given its current market focus? It is the GMs, Hyundais, Renaults, and Toyotas of the world that need to be leaders in highly efficient vehicles because those manufacturers cater to the people that will most likely be pinched by higher fuel prices and/or the downsides of GW.
Reply
jim 9:17AM (4/24/2007)
In reality BMW is a small niche manufacturer, whose brand image lends it far greater importance among consumers than its sales should command. Additionally the consumers purchase BMWs for performance and in particular the performance of the company's internal combustion engines.
BMW has shown leadership in environmental issues through its early adoption of techinques to ease vehicle recycling and Green production practices. Waiting for science and the marketplace to sort out what will be the next technology(s) for powering automobiles makes financial sense for a company BMW's size.
Just as ICEs, powered by gasoline or diesel became the standard for automobiles over steam and electricity in the last century, other technologies will come forward in the coming years. At that point BMW and other small manufacturers can jump in and adapt and improve the technology.
Reply
regguy 10:31AM (4/24/2007)
Unfortunately, several important points are missed in your editorial:
- Hybrids are a techical feature, not the energy carrier of the future
- E85 is a politically popular scheme (support farmers), but heavily taxpayer subsidized, was created to "game" CAFE, has food supply ramifications, delivers worse fuel economy, BUT reduces dependance on foreign oil. Some merit, but it likely won't be the 2050 solution. Weather will wildly affect growing efficiency::price::availability.
- Hydrogen can be produced in a variety of sustainable and clean methods, and in the relatively short term, a 50/50 mix of renewably- produced and petroleum-derived hydrogen can substantially reduce source-to-tank CO2 emissions
- H7 ICE and fuel cell developments are not contradictory, however, fuel cells may be more appropriate for aux. power units
- Avoid "all eggs in one basket," the ICE is well known technology. What if fuel cells have problems with cost/reliability/trained technicians qualified to repair them, etc? Seen any turbine cars on the road lately?
- An ICE running on hydrogen is not a ZEV but the now incredibly small emissions from nitrogen and lubrication oil burned will diminish further to practically zero.
- The method of storing hydrogen in the H7 gives the longest range vs. compressed gas and doesn't rely on a 10,000 psi vessel 6 inches from our kids. Seen any CNG cars on the road lately? Will they ever be allowed in tunnels?
- The boil off from liquid hydrogen will be solved in the near term
- The H7 was intended to address the "chicken or egg" scenario...with hydrogen vehicles physically viable, the "hydrogen highway" can have paying customers
- Electric power will be used...but the battery technology and time to charge now restricts it's use. Major breakthroughs are needed. Imagine a cross country trip in an RV with battery power in 2030. Now imagine it in a hydrogen-diesel ICE.
- The sun is not electrically powered...it provides a good example of sustainable energy.
- When you collect all the reasons to critcize the H7 program, please remember that a "quarterly dividend" approach common in the US may not always be appropriate on a global scale.
Reply
Joe P 1:52PM (4/24/2007)
Regguy has alot of good points but I have a question that I've never seen addressed. CO2 is blamed for global warming because it's a greenhouse gas. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. In fact it is, depending on who you ask, 6 to 15 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. Wouldn't a fleet of millions hydrogen cars spewing out millions of pounds of water vapor just make global warming that much worst. If any one knows the answer and/or direct me to an answer I'd greatly appreciate it.
Reply
Chris M 9:20PM (4/29/2007)
The "H2 boil-off" problem is like having a fuel tank that leaks 2 quarts of petrol every day! There is no simple solution - using a pressure tank or adding a H2 fueled cryocooler could reduce but not eliminate the losses.
With the BMW "Hydrogen 7" getting a mere 120 mile range with a 30 gallon liquid H2 tank, that is hardly the longest range in H2 fueled vehicles! The Hydrogen 7 is so incredibly inept that someone at BMW must have deliberately designed it to fail. The reason? BMW wants to continue the same old fossil fueled IC engine line, with minor tweaks, indefinitely. Note the lack of interest in hybrids, electrics, and biofuels.
Using H2 to fuel IC engines makes absolutely no economic sense. Considering the energy loss in producing H2 from fossil fuels or biofuels, it would be much more efficient and produce less CO2 to burn those fuels directly, not make H2. Electrolysis is worse, 60% efficient. When the energy required to liquify H2 is added, then the inefficient IC engine is used, overall efficiency is less than 10%. Compare that with the 85% efficiency of a battery electric! Throwing away 3/4 of your electrical energy makes no sense, especially expensive but clean solar electricity.
Reply
Chris M 9:48PM (4/29/2007)
Quote from regguy "Imagine a cross country trip in an RV with battery power in 2030.
Now imagine it in a hydrogen-diesel ICE."
I could imagine a cross country trip in an electric RV, once powered guideways are in place. The guideway would provide power "on the go", so cross country would be easy, even for fast "no stop" runs. Currently available LiIon batteries can easily provide enough range for side trips, and batteries would be improved by 2030.
The "hydrogen diesel ICE RV" is a pure nightmare. Consider an average RV getting 8 mpg on gasoline. On H2, that drops to 2 mpg. For a 300 mile range, you'd need a 150 gallon liquid H2 tank or an even larger 188 gallon compressed H2 tank! Half of your RV would be tank! Or you could forget H2 and run on Diesel - assuming it is still available in 2030.
Personally, I'd forgo the RV altogether. For a lot less money, I could vacation at some rather posh (and roomy) resorts and not have to put up with cramped quarters.
Reply