Autoblog

IMO, there is room for both technologies

Electric is more suited for cheaper cars and short distances
Hydrogen for bigger cars

↓↑report

The equivalent mpg of the Hydrogen 7 is only about 15MPG running on hydrogen (it gets around 15 miles/kilogram H2 which is roughly the equivalent mpg) and it only makes 260 hp. The Honda FCX Clarity gets half the power at 134hp, but it gets 68 miles/kilogram.
http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/news/2006/11/72100?currentPage=2

So I hardly call the BMW Hydrogen 7 a technical achievement. Not only does it still emit CO2 and N2O b/c it's still a combustion vehicle, it doesn't do any better in efficiency than a normal 750Li, which gets 360hp and 15mpg city/23hwy. Remember this doesn't even factor in the energy loss from MAKING and LIQUIFYING the hydrogen in the first place.

I'm sure the Volt will get much better efficiency.
So, in short, it's BMW that looks "bad, slow, and unintelligent." That's why they are considering switching to focus on electrics, which both the Volt and the Clarity benefits from, since they essentially use an EV drivetrain.
http://blogs.edmunds.com/GreenCarAdvisor/203

↓↑report

Here is an in depth video from Jay Leno about the Hydrogen 7 (includes a test drive too):

http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/video/video_player.shtml?vid=190254

↓↑report

Huh, never heard of the word "Egglectric."
All I can say is, by your definition of the word, if I'm an "Egglectric," I wouldn't even mention the FCX Clarity.

"The mono-fuel H7 runs on hydrogen alone and emits no CO2"
I gave a link to the wired article for a reason:
"However, some nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide are emitted, so the Hydrogen 7 is not a zero-emission car. ... planned hydrogen-only model will further reduce N2O emissions to within 10 percent of the maximum levels in the United States, BMW says."
Nowhere does it mention that the H7 will be a ZEV in it's hydrogen-only form; I know NO2 is definitely still going to be emitted; please provide a link to where you got that no CO2 will be emitted in the mono-fuel H2.

"you're wrong on the mpg":
I got it straight from BMW through the same article: "The car consumes about 15 miles per kilogram for a total cruising range of 120 miles, BMW says." The miles/GGE given in your link was 17 for the H7 on the FTP-75, so as I said, it gives roughly the equivalent mpg (15 and 17 is damn close). The highway number was 30, which is better than the gasoline version, but definitely not better than the Clarity. By all accounts the Clarity will get 68 miles/GGE combined cycle. There's no indication the mono-fuel H7 will get even close.

The only positive I can see in combustion based hydrogen cars is that they might be less costly than fuel cell versions, but besides from that, fuel cell vehicles and fuel cells in general are still much more efficient and useful in their applications.

Quite frankly, I think any auto-enthusiast here will find the power of the hydrogen combustion engines to be pathetic. The H7 gets 260hp from a large 6l V12. Ford gets 235hp from a supercharged 6.8l V10 hydrogen. I'll give it to them that it's very early research, but so far it doesn't look like much of an achievement to me.

"Regarding criticism of energy and origins to create hydrogen, do you own anything made of cotton? Do you remember a time in history when cotton was produced using the energy of slaves? Was cotton abolished or slavery?"

Every time there is any discussion of EV/PHEVs, the energy and origins of the electricity is ALWAYS brought up, even by people of the general public. But when discussing hydrogen vehicles it almost NEVER gets brought up. I'm just evening the playing field. For the same reason that the origins of the electricity gets brought up, I think it's valid for the origins of hydrogen to get brought up. I don't think the public has the equivalent "electricity => coal => heavy pollution" reflex ingrained into them in regards to hydrogen, it's mostly "hydrogen => H2O => Water".

↓↑report

I think a bigger issue is that hydrogen has such a low potential energy, relatively speaking, especially combined with the current energy losses in producing said energy. Yes, that cost will decrease with more market share, but I think that hydrogen shouldn't be considered as fuel by itself; instead, only in combination with other fuels to gain some of its benefits (injection into normal gasoline to help decrease cylinder/chamber temperatures?)

↓↑report

Exactly.

↓↑report