Filed under: Concept Cars, Trends, Coupes, Hybrids/Alternative, Minivans/MPVs, Sports/GTs, Green, Japan, Mazda
Mazda delivers first street-legal hydrogen-powered RX-8s
With the delivery of the first RX-8 Hydrogen REs in Japan, Mazda is claiming the first fleet deliveries of a street legal hydrogen/gasoline hybrid vehicle. Two examples have been delivered -- one to Idemitsu Kosan Co. Ltd. of Tokyo, and another to Iwatani International Corp. in Osaka.
The cars are to take part in the Japan Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Demonstration Project (JHFC), an evaluation designed to assess the viability of alternative-fuel technology out in the real world.
[Source: CarPoint Australia and Mazda]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
charlie 11:17AM (3/26/2006)
pretty cool. Wasnt there something about BMW planning on selling hydrogen/gasoline 7 series to the public soon?
Reply
Sly 2:56PM (3/26/2006)
I really hope there will be more about hybrid cars in the near future. I think we really need an alternative to gasoline. A ten for Mazda today :)
Reply
Fletcher Williams 3:24PM (3/26/2006)
Sounds like the beginning of new street hazard, putting our children at risk.
Can you imagine, a fleet of Hindenburgs -- regularly colliding in vast and deadly fireballs?
Reply
Ken 4:01PM (3/26/2006)
How much carbon-based fuel will we have to burn to get the hydrogen?
Reply
Dave 4:35PM (3/26/2006)
We won't have to burn any carbon-based fuel to get the hydrogen if we invest in clean energy creation like wind, hydro, and solar energy. Plus nuclear energy would be a great solution but of course the hippies don't like nuclear. I say build a bunch of them in wyoming, nevada, and montana where no one lives.
Reply
Orbit Rain 4:51PM (3/26/2006)
...cool...
I wonder what the gasoline mpg numbers will end up being, in reality after a bit of use...
Reply
ZoomZoomin' 5:10PM (3/26/2006)
I dig the RX-8 (obviously), but I've still gotta say that the hydrogen version is kind of silly. However, I'm really interested in hearing what it sounds like at full rev (if it even has the same redline when running on hydrogen).
One thing that does truly amaze me is that Mazda figured out a way to make the RX-8 even less fuel efficient (by a pretty big margin) and with a lot less power to match. I like Mazda, but I suspect either some sort of behind the curtains action with this project or it's just a pure press exercise. Looking at the prototypes, the cars seem close to useless for out-in-the-wild research mules.
Reply
starlightmica 7:40PM (3/26/2006)
>Can you imagine, a fleet of Hindenburgs -- regularly colliding in vast and deadly fireballs?
Hindenburg went up because of flammable dirigible coverings, not the hydrogen itself. In an accident, if a hydrogen tank were punctured the gas would rapidly dissipate, as opposed to, say gasoline, which is quite the volatile/flammable. You could say we have hundreds of millions of little Hindenburgs on the roads right now.
Reply
JinFX 8:13PM (3/26/2006)
what does a fleet need a RX8 for?
Reply
John Blake 9:44PM (3/26/2006)
Several points: First, the Hindenberg did not "just explode", it was sabotaged by a bomb. The gas was helium, not hydrogen. False analogy with Mazda.
Second, the real answer to "Where do we get hydrogen?" is, From nuclear power plants-- an ultimate dilemma for Green irrationalists, who anathematize CO2 in the same breath as "atomic energy". (France and Japan are the most heavily nuclear-dependent countries in the world. Since massive energy-production began in early 1960s, they have experienced NO problems. In the U.S., even thinking about "nukes" causes cancer-in-rats... of course, you do have to be a rat, which is what arrogant, selfish, Greenies generally are.)
Third, since this article on "hy-hybrids" provides no performance numbers, never mind context and perspective on operating cost/efficiencies, the review is probably a mere PR exercise. Again, we emphasize: Hydrogen fuel in mass-commercial quantities is a synonym for nuclear-generated power. Until cultural shifts entail a radical dose of realism, it really doesn't matter what Mazda or any other automaker trickles out as bait.
Reply
Ron 10:08PM (3/26/2006)
Hindenburg burned because of fire in the cover. Just because of that, some generalize that hydrogen is safe. There are plenty of real life examples of hydrogen detonating and a few people have been killed. It is unclear whether hydrogen will be a larger safety hazard than gasoline in an automotive application. Hopefully this Mazda will add to the hydrogen safety knowledge base. There should be serious concerns about a hydrogen leak inside enclosed parking structures.
Reply
frankwolftown 10:32PM (3/26/2006)
I started selling Fords a weeks ago. Maybe I should have hooked up Mazda.
Reply
Marc 11:51PM (3/26/2006)
My car is hydrogen powered like many in the U.S. We store it reasonably safely as a hydrocarbon with much higher energy densities than most if not all other hydrogen storage schemes. We call it gasoline.
Reply
the chad 3:22AM (3/27/2006)
Uhh, John, the Hindenburg was originally designed to be filled with helium, but was changed to hydrogen before it was launched.
Next, Fletcher Williams, hydrogen will be at least as safe as gas. When people use more dangerous things, they use stricter safety measures. Plus, starlightmica is right-hydrogen would not ignite w/o fire or intense heat, just as gasoline. So no real safety hazard.
Reply
Chalacuna 5:26AM (3/27/2006)
hmmnn pretty cool.. could that be mass produced and viable in the next 5 years?
Hydrogen power is really clean source of power. Totally the best alternative fuel to oil.
chalacuna;
http://copycars.blogspot.com
http://futurerides.blogspot.com
http://greenfuelpower.blogspot.com
Reply
Peter W. 7:55AM (3/27/2006)
"Why an RX-8?"
Because rotary engines are a lot less complex and a lot easier to fortify for burning really, really volatile gasses like hydrogen (as opposed to pistons/valves/cams/crankshaft/connecting rods... you have two roters and an eccentric shaft) ... and the only car that has a production rotary is the RX-8.
"They killed the efficiency of the rotary, there must be something silly going on here"
Rotaries have never been very efficient. Mazda almost died in the 70's because they were in the process of moving their entire fleet to rotary power when the gas crisis hit, and figures like 17 MPG in relatively light-n-small cars weren't doing it for anyone. Ironically, rotaries have always been very clean... being able to run without catalytic converters for the first stages of the clean air act by only putting a thermal reactor in the exhaust manifold (a chamber that got hot to burn off any extra hydrocarbons). The Renesis rotary (the updated version in the RX-8) actually won engine of the year because of how clean it is. And you have to admit, 250 HP from a NA 1.3 liter is impressive.
Reply
Frank Luongo 9:43AM (3/27/2006)
I say construct several nuclear plants in out of the way locations and use the power to generate hydrogen and transport the hydrogen to appropriate distribution facilites. Voila, no more middle eastern oil!
Might take a few years and require a government directed
energy independence effort but we can't wait any longer and we need a bold vision for the future.
Reply
Stephen Chiang 10:36AM (3/27/2006)
As much as all you blame mongers want to blame the "enviros" or "greenies" for not supporting nuclear technology, no one wants a nuclear power plant in their backyard no matter what political belief one has.
John Blake, I haven't done the research to back up your claim that Japan and France have had no major problems. But people are likely to think of the near catastrophe of 3 Mile Island and uber-catastrophe of Chernobyl when a nuclear power plant is propsed in their neighborhood.
However, current nuclear powerplant designs, limit the risks that caused 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl to occur. A better solution than blaming the "enviros" is reducing the stigma that nuclear powerplants have in our society as a whole. Education is a lot better than spreading useless ignornant opinion about those whose opinion you don't agree with.
There is nothing wrong with having concern for the place we inhabit and demanding that there are no environmental or safety concerns with whatever technology is put into production.
Reply
Lane Lombardia 11:06AM (3/27/2006)
Thorium after irradiation, yields an isotope of Uranium suitable for power production but wholly unsuitable for weapons usage and its waste break down in considerably less time (Wired magazine asserts 500 years versus the thousands needed for conventional fission waste products). Because of the comparative abundance of Thorium, it is allegedly being considered for power production in India, which would skirt their obligations under the nuclear proliferation treaties they have signed onto, as well. Curiously, and as a side note, I have not heard anyone suggest "Thorium energy amplifiers" (what fission reactors using irradiated Thorium are referred to) for Iran, as this would offer all the commercial electrical power they claim to want, allow them to internalize the source of raw materials, and completely eliminate international concerns over nuclear weapon pursuits, unless of course, their whole objective really is nuclear armaments. Hmmm.....
Reply
the chad 1:23PM (3/27/2006)
Ahh, Stephen, you are sadly mistaken. You see, nuclear reactors are much SAFER than such dangerous things like refineries. You might want to take a look at the ACTUAL FIGURES for the 'uber-disasters' at 3 Mi & Chernobyl. They really were not hardly anything. And considering the some 200-something reactors around the world today. Chernobyl had a total of 60 radiation-related deaths to date. The oil refineries are even more dangerous, and effect at least as many people. The ONLY reason one would not want these as opposed to a refinery or coal plant or anything else to generate power is for a political statement or because of sheer ignorance. As I mentioned in an earlier post above, when more danger is present, safety measures are greater. Oh yeah, btw, Chernobyl was a result of UNAUTHORIZED EXPERIMENTS, not because nuclear is inherently unsafe. Our government is currently planning to build more reactors, and they will be just as safe and create less pollution than coal or oil plants. The waste will be stored away safely, and no harm will be done. Look into nuclear reactors compared to other forms of energy. They are by far the best decision to proceed with. Let me know if you find anything to prove me wrong.
Reply